
Glass _ 
Book, 



.1 



■ Ua 



rrer 



t^' 



The Political Debates 

between 

Abraham Lincoln 

and 

Stephen A. Douglas 

In the Senatorial Campaign of 1858 in Illinois 

Together with Certain Preceding Speeches of 

Each at Chicago, Springfield, etc. 

With an Introduction by 

George Haven Putnam, Litt.D. 



G. P. Putnam's Sons 

New York and London 

^be f{nicF;ecbocfter press 

1912 






Zbe finfckerbocftec prese, Hew S?ocfc 



CONTENTS 



Correspondence between Lincoln and Douglas, 
Preliminary to the Debates . 

First Joint Debate, at Ottawa, August 21, 1858 
Douglas's Opening Speech 
Lincoln's Reply 
Douglas's Rejoinder . 



Second Joint Debate, at Freeport 
Lincoln's Opening Speech 
Douglas's Reply . 
Lincoln's Rejoinder 



PAGB 



Speech of Lincoln, at Springfield, June 17, 1858 , i 

" " AT Chicago, July id, 1858 . 38 

" " AT Springfield, July 17, 1858 . 150 

Speech of Douglas, at Chicago, July 9, 1858 . . 14 

AT Bloomington, July 16, 1858 67 

" at Springfield, July 17, 1858 . in 



178 

185 
185 
203 
232 



August 27, 1858 243 

. 243 

. 260 

. 294 



Third Joint Debate, at Jonesboro, September 15, 

1858 306 

Douglas's Speech 306 

Lincoln's Reply ...... 330 

Douglas's Rejoinder ..... 363 

I iii , 



iv Contents 

Fourth Joint Debate, at Charleston, September 
i8, 1858 

Lincoln's Speech 

Douglas's Reply ..... 

Lincoln's Rejoinder .... 

Extract from Trumbull's Speech at Alton 

Extract from Douglas's Speech at Jackson 

ville ....... 

Fifth Joint Debate, at Galesburgh, October 7 

1858 

Douglas's Speech .... 

Lincoln's Reply 

Douglas's Rejoinder .... 

Sixth Joint Debate, at Quincy, October 13, 1858 
Lincoln's Speech ..... 
Douglas's Reply ..... 
Lincoln's Rejoinder .... 



PAGB 

I 
I 

23 
56 
69 

80 

92 
92 

112 
140 

171 
202 



Seventh and Last Joint Debate, at Alton, October 

15. 1858 215 

Douglas's Speech . . . . .215 

Lincoln's Reply 238 

Douglas's Rejoinder 273 



INTRODUCTION 

In 1854, Douglas carried through Congress the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill. This bill repealed the Mis- 
souri Compromise of 1820, and cancelled also the 
provisions of the series of compromises of 1850. 
Its purpose was to throw open for settlement and 
for later organisation as Slave States the whole 
territory of the North-west from which, under the 
Missouri Compromise, slavery had been excluded. 
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill not only threw open a 
great territory to slavery but re-opened the whole 
slavery discussion. The issues that were brought 
to the front in the discussions about this bill, and in 
the still more bitter contests after the passage of the 
bill in regard to the admission of Kansas as a Slave 
State, were the immediate precursors of the Civil 
War. The larger causes lay farther back, but the 
war would have been postponed for an indefinite 
period if it had not been for the pressing on the part 
of the South for the right to make Slave States 
throughout the entire territory of the country, and 
for the readiness on the part of certain Democratic 
leaders of the North, of whom Douglas was the chief, 
to accept this contention, and through such expedi- 
ents to gain, or to retain, political control for the 
Democratic party. 

In one of the long series of debates in Congress on 



vi Introduction 

the question of the right to take slaves into free 
territory, a planter from South Carolina drew an 
affecting picture of his relations with his old coloured 
foster-mother, the "Mammy" of the plantation. 
"Do you tell me," he said, addressing himself to a 
Free-soil opponent, "that I, a free American citizen, 
am not to be permitted, if I want to go across the 
Missouri River, to take with me my whole home 
circle? Do you say that I must leave my old 
'Mammy' behind in South Carolina?" "Oh!" 
replied the Westerner, "the trouble with you is not 
that you cannot take your 'Mammy' into this free 
territory, but that you are not to be at liberty to sell 
her when you get her there." 

Lincoln threw himself with full earnestness of 
conviction and ardour into the fight to preserve 
for freedom the territory belonging to the nation. 
In common with the majority of the Whig party, 
he held the opinion that if slavery could be restricted 
to the States in which it was already in existence, if 
no further States should be admitted into the Union, 
with the burden of slavery, the institution must, in 
the course of a generation or two, die out. He was 
clear in his mind that slavery was an enormous 
evil for the whites as well as for the blacks, for 
the individual as for the nation. He had, himself, 
as a young man, been brought up to do toilsome 
manual labour. He would not admit that there was 
anything in manual labour that ought to impair 
the respect of the community for the labourer or the 
worker's respect for himself. Not the least of the 
evils of slavery was, in his judgment, its inevitable 



Introduction vii 

influence in bringing degradation upon labour and 
the labourer. 

The passage of the Kansas- Nebraska Act made 
clear to the North that the South would accept no 
limitations for slavery. The position of the Southern 
leaders, in which they had the substantial backing 
of their constituents, was that slaves were property 
and that the Constitution, having guaranteed the 
protection of property to all the citizens of the 
commonwealth, a slaveholder was deprived of his 
constitutional rights as a citizen if his control of 
this portion of his property was in any way inter- 
fered with or restricted. The argument in behalf of 
this extreme Southern claim had been shaped most 
eloquently and most forcibly by John C. Calhoun 
during the years between 1830 and 1850. The 
Calhoun opinion was represented a few years later 
in the Presidential candidacy of John C. Breckin- 
ridge. The contention of the more extreme of the 
Northern opponents of slavery voters, whose spokes- 
men were William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, 
James G. Birney, Owen Lovejoy, and others, was 
that the Constitution in so far as it recognised slavery 
(which it did only by implication) was a compact 
with evil. They held that the Fathers had been led 
into this compact unwittingly and without full 
realisation of the responsibilities that they were 
assuming for the perpetuation of a great wrong. 
They refused to accept the view that later generations 
of American citizens were to be bound for an indefi- 
nite period by this error of judgment on the part of 
the Fathers. They proposed to get rid of slavery, 



viii Introduction 

as an institution incompatible with the principles on 
which the Republic was founded. They pointed 
out that under the Declaration of Independence all 
men had an equal right to "life, liberty, and the 
pursuit of happiness," and that there was no limita- 
tion of this claim to men of white race. If it was 
not going to be possible to argue slavery out of 
existence, these men preferred to have the Union 
dissolved rather than to bring upon States like 
Massachusetts a share of the responsibility for the 
wrong done to mankind and to justice under the 
laws of South Carolina. 

The Whig party, whose great leader, Henry Clay, 
had closed his life in 1852, just at the time when 
Lincoln was becoming prominent in politics, held 
that all citizens were bound by the compact entered 
into by their ancestors, first under the Articles of 
Confederation of 1783, and later under the Constitu- 
tion of 1789. Our ancestors had for the purpose of 
bringing about the organisation of the Union, agreed 
to respect the institution of slavery in the States in 
which it existed. The Whigs of 1850, held, therefore^ 
that in such of the Slave States as had been part of 
the original thirteen, slavery was an institution to 
be recognised and protected under the law of the 
land. They admitted, further, that what their 
grandfathers had done in 1789 had been in a measure 
confirmed by the action of their fathers in 1820. 
The Missouri Compromise of 1820, in making clear 
that all States thereafter organised north of the line 
thirty-six, thirty were to be Free States, made clear 
also that States south of that line had the privilege 



Introduction ix 

of coming into the Union with the institution of 
slavery, and that the citizens in these newer Slave 
States should be assured of the same recognition and 
rights as had been accorded to those of the original 
thirteen. 

The Missouri Compromise permitted also the 
introduction of Missouri itself into the Union as a 
Slave State (as a counterpoise to the State of Maine 
admitted the same year), although almost the entire 
territory of the State of Missouri was north of the 
latitude 36° 30'. 

We may recall that, under the Constitution, the 
States of the South, while denying the suffrage to 
the negro, had secured the right to include the 
negro population as a basis for their representation 
in the lower House. In apportioning the represen- 
tatives to the population, five negroes were to be 
counted as the equivalent of three white men. The 
passage, in 1854, of the Kansas- Nebraska Act, the 
purpose of which was to confirm the existence of 
slavery and to extend the institution throughout the 
country, was carried in the House by thirteen votes. 
The House contained at that time no less than 
twenty members representing the negro population. 
The negroes were, therefore, in this instance involun- 
tarily made the instriunents for strengthening the 
chains of their own serfdom. 

It was in 1854 that Lincoln first propounded the 
famous question, "Can the nation endure half 
slave and half free?" This question, slightly modi- 
fied, became the keynote four years later of Lincoln's 
contention against the Douglas theory of "squatter 



X Introduction 

sovereignty." The organisation of the Repubhcan 
party dates from 1856. Various claims have been 
made concerning the precise date and place at which 
was first presented the statement of principles that 
constituted the final platform of the party and in 
regard to the men who were responsible for such 
statement. At a meeting held as far back as July, 
1854, at Jackson, Michigan, a platform was adopted 
by a convention which had been brought together 
to formulate opposition to any extension of slavery, 
and this Jackson platform did contain the substance 
of the conclusions and certain of the phrases which 
later were included in the Republican platform. 
In January, 1856, Parke Godwin published in 
Putnam's Monthly, of which he was political editor, 
an article outlining the necessary constitution of the 
new party. This article gave a fuller expression 
than had thus far been made of the views of the men 
who were later accepted as the leaders of the Repub- 
lican party. In May, 1856, Lincoln made a speech at 
Bloomington, Illinois, setting forth the principles 
for the antislavery campaign as they were under- 
stood by his group of Whigs. In this speech, Lincoln 
speaks of "that perfect liberty for which our South- 
ern fellow-citizens are sighing, the liberty of making 
slaves of other people"; and again: "It is the con- 
tention of Mr. Douglas, in his claim for the rights of 
American citizens, that if A sees fit to enslave B, no 
other man shall have the right to object." Of this 
Bloomington speech, Herndon says: "It was logic; 
it was pathos; it was enthusiasm; it was justice, 
integrity, truth, and right. The words seemed to 



Introduction xi 

be set ablaze by the divine fires of a soul maddened 
by a great wrong. The utterance was hard, knotty, 
gnarly, backed with wrath." 

Lincoln's correspondence has been preserved with 
what is probably substantial completeness. The 
letters written by him to friends, acquaintances, 
political correspondents, individual men of one kind 
or another, have been gathered together and have 
been brought into print not, as is most frequently 
the case, under the discretion or judgment of a 
friendly biographer, but by a great variety of more 
or less sympathetic people. It would seem as if but 
very few of Lincoln's letters could have been mislaid 
or destroyed. One can but be impressed, in reading 
these letters, with the absolute honesty of purpose 
and of statement that characterises them. There 
are very few men, particularly those whose active 
lives have been passed in a period of political struggle 
and civil war, whose correspondence could stand such 
a test. There never came to Lincoln requirement 
to say to his correspondent, "Burn this letter." 

In 1856, the Supreme Coiu-t, under the headship 
of Judge Taney, gave out the decision in the Dred 
Scott case. The purport of this decision was that a 
negro was not to be considered as a person but as a 
chattel; and that the taking of such negro chattel 
into free territory did not cancel or impair the prop- 
erty rights of the master. It appeared to the men of 
the North as if under this decision the entire country, 
including in addition to the national territories the 
independent States which had excluded slavery, was 
to be thrown open to the invasion of the institution. 



xii Introduction 

The Dred Scott decision, taken in connection with 
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise (and the two 
acts were doubtless a part of one thoroughly con- 
sidered policy), foreshadowed as their logical and 
almost inevitable consequence the bringing of the 
entire nation under this control of slavery. The men 
of the future State of Kansas made during 1856-57 a 
plucky fight to keep slavery out of their borders. 
The so-called Lecompton Constitution undertook 
to force slavery upon Kansas. This constitution 
was declared by the administration (that of President 
Buchanan) to have been adopted, but the fraudulent 
character of the voting was so evident that Walker* 
the Democratic Governor, although a sympathiser 
with slavery, felt compelled to repudiate it. This 
constitution was repudiated also by Douglas, al- 
though Douglas had declared that the State ought 
to be thrown open to slavery. Jefferson Davis, at 
that time Secretary of War, declared that "Kansas 
was in a state of rebellion and that the rebellion must 
be crushed." Armed bands from Missouri crossed 
the river to Kansas for the purpose of casting fraudu- 
lent votes and for the further purpose of keeping 
the Free-soil settlers away from the polls. 

This fight for freedom in Kansas gave a further 
basis for Lincoln's statement that "a house divided 
against itself cannot stand; this government cannot 
endure half slave and half free." It was with this 
statement as his starting-point that Lincoln entered 
into his famous Senatorial campaign with Douglas. 
Douglas had already represented Illinois in the Senate 
for two terms and had, therefore, the advantage of 



Introduction xiii 

possession and of a substantial control of the ma- 
chinery of the State. He had the repute at the time 
of being the leading political debater in the country. 
He was shrewd, forcible, courageous, and, in the 
matter of convictions, unprincipled. He knew 
admirably how to cater to the prejudices of the 
masses. His career thus far had been one of un- 
broken success. His Senatorial fight was, in his 
hope and expectation, to be but a step towards the 
Presidency. The Democratic party, with an absolute 
control south of Mason and Dixon's Line and with 
a very substantial support in the Northern States, 
was in a position, if unbroken, to control with prac- 
tical certainty the Presidential election of i860. 
Douglas seemed to be the natural leader of the 
party. It was necessary for him, however, while 
retaining the support of the Democrats of the North, 
to make clear to those of the South that his influence 
would work for the maintenance and for the extension 
of slavery. 

The South was well pleased with the purpose and 
with the result of the Dred Scott decision and with 
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. It is 
probable, however, that if the Dred Scott decision 
had not given to the South so full a measure of 
satisfaction, the South would have been more ready 
to accept the leadership of a Northern Democrat 
like Douglas. Up to a certain point in the conflict, 
they had felt the need of Douglas and had realised 
the importance of the support that he was in a posi- 
tion to bring from the North. When, however, the 
Missouri Compromise had been repealed and the 



xiv Introduction 

Supreme Court had declared that slaves must be 
recognised as property throughout the entire country, 
the Southern claims were increased to a point to 
which certain of the followers of Douglas were not 
willing to go. It was a large compliment to the 
young lawyer of Illinois to have placed upon him the 
responsibility of leading, against such a competitor 
as Douglas, the contest of the Whigs, and of the 
Free-soilers back of the Whigs, against any further 
extension of slavery, a contest which was really a 
fight for the continued existence of the nation. 

Lincoln seems to have gone into the fight with 
full courage, the courage of his convictions. He felt 
that Douglas was a trimmer, and he believed that the 
issue had now been brought to a point at which the 
trimmer could not hold support on both sides of 
Mason and Dixon's Line. He formulated at the 
outset of the debate a question which was pressed 
persistently upon Douglas during the succeeding 
three weeks. This question was worded as follows: 
"Can the people of a United States territory, prior 
to the formation of a State constitution or against 
the protest of any citizen of the United States, ex- 
clude slavery?" Lincoln's campaign advisers were 
of opinion that this question was inadvisable. They 
took the ground that Douglas would answer the 
question in such way as to secure the approval of 
the voters of Illinois and that in so doing he would 
win the Senatorship. Lincoln's response was in 
substance: " That may be. I hold, however, that 
if Douglas answers this question in a way to satisfy 
the Democrats of the North, he will inevitably lose 



Introduction xv 

the support of the more extreme, at least, of the 
Democrats of the South. We may lose the Senator- 
ship as far as my personal candidacy is concerned. 
If, however, Douglas fails to retain the support of 
the South, he cannot become President in i860. The 
line will be drawn directly between those who are 
willing to accept the extreme claims of the South and 
those who resist these claims. A right decision is 
the essential thing for the safety of the nation." 
The question gave no little perplexity to Douglas. 
He finally, however, replied that in his judgment 
the people of a United States territory had the right 
to exclude slavery. When asked again by Lincoln 
how he brought this decision into accord with the 
Dred Scott decision, he replied in substance : ' ' Well, 
they have not the right to take constitutional mea- 
sures to exclude slavery, but they can by local legis- 
lation render slavery practically impossible." The 
Dred Scott decision had in fact itself overturned the 
Douglas theory of popular sovereignty or "squatter 
sovereignty." Douglas was only able to say that 
his sovereignty contention made provision for such 
control of domestic or local regulations as would make 
slavery impossible. 

The South, rendered autocratic by the authority 
of the Supreme Court, was not willing to accept the 
possibility of slavery being thus restricted out of 
existence in any part of the country. The Southern- 
ers repudiated Douglas as Lincoln had prophesied 
they would do. Douglas had been trying the 
impossible task of carrying water on both shoulders. 
He gained the Senatorship by a narrow margin; he 



xvi Introduction 

secured in the vote in the Legislature a majority of 
eight, but Lincoln had even in this fight won the 
support of the people. His majority on the popular 
vote was four thousand. 

The series of debates between these two leaders 
came to be of national importance. It was not 
merely a question of the representation in the Senate 
from the State of Illinois, but of the presentation of 
arguments, not only to the voters of Illinois but to 
citizens throughout the entire country, in behalf of 
the restriction of slavery on the one hand or of its 
indefinite expansion and protection on the other. 
The debate was educational not merely for the voters 
who listened, but for the thousands of other voters 
who read the reports. 

It would be an enormous advantage for the political 
education of candidates and for the education of 
voters if such debates could become the routine in 
Congressional and Presidential campaigns. Under 
the present routine, we have, in place of an assembly 
of voters representing the conflicting views of the 
two parties or of the several political groups, a homo- 
geneous audience of one way of thinking, and speakers 
who have no opponent present to check the tempta- 
tion to launch forth into wild statements, personal 
abuse, and irresponsible conclusions. An interrup- 
tion of the speaker is considered to be a disturbance 
of order, and the man who is not fully in sympathy 
with the views of the audience is likely to be put out 
as an interloper. With a system of joint debates, the 
speakers would be under an educational repression. 
False or exaggerated statements would not be made, 



Introduction xvii 

or would not be made consciously, because they would 
be promptly corrected by the other fellow. There 
would of necessity come to be a better understanding 
and a larger respect for the positions of the opponent. 
The men selected as leaders or speakers to enforce 
the contentions of the party, would have to possess 
some reasoning faculty as well as oratorical fluency. 
The voters, instead of being shut in with one group 
of arguments more or less reasonable, would be 
brought into touch with the arguments of other 
groups of citizens. I can conceive of no better 
method than the institution of joint debates, for 
bringing representative government on to a higher 
plane and for making an election what it ought to be, 
a reasonable decision by reasoning voters. 

G. H. P. 
New York, April, 1910. 



Political Debates 

between 

Abraham Lincoln 

and 

Stephen A. Douglas 

In the Senatorial Campaign of 1858 in Illinois; 

including the preceding speeches of each 

at Chicago, Springfield, etc. 



Part I 



POLITICAL DEBATES 



BETWEEN 



LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS 



SPEECH OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 

At Springfield, June 17, 1858. 

[The following speech was delivered at Springfield, 
111., at the close of the Republican vState Convention 
held at that time and place, and by which Conven- 
tion Mr. Lincoln had been named as their candidate 
for United States Senator. Mr. Douglas was not 
present.] 

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Con- 
vention: If we could first know where we are, and 
whither we are tending, we could better judge what 
to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the 
fifth year since a policy was initiated with the 
avowed object and confident promise of putting an 
end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of 
that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, 
but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it 
will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached 
and passed. "A house di^n'ded against itself cannot 



2 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

stand." I believe this government cannot endure 
permanently half slave and half free. I do not 
expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect 
the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing, or all the 
other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest 
the further spread of it, and place it where the public 
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of 
ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it 
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the 
States, old as well as new, North as well as South. 

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? 

Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate 
that now almost complete legal combination — piece 
of machinery, so to speak — compounded of the 
Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. 
Let him consider, not only what work the machinery 
is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let 
him study the history of its construction, and trace, 
if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evi- 
dences of design, and concert of action, among its 
chief architects, from the beginning. 

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded 
frc^ more than half the States by State Constitu- 
tions, and from most of the National territory by 
Congressional prohibition. Four days later, com- 
menced the struggle which ended in repealing that 
Congressional prohibition. This opened all the 
National territory to slavery, and was the first point 
gained. 

But, so far. Congress only had acted, and an in- 
dorsement by the people, real or apparent, was in- 



Abraham Lincoln 3 

dispensable to save the point already gained, and 
give chance for more. 

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had 
been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable 
argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called 
"sacred right of self-government," which latter 
phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis 
of any government, was so perverted in this at- 
tempted use of it as to amount to just this : That if 
any one man choose to enslave another, no third man 
shall be allowed to object. That argument was 
incoi-porated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the 
language which follows: "It being the true intent 
and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into 
any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, 
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form 
and regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States." Then opened the roar of loose declama- 
tion in favor of "squatter sovereignty," and "sacred 
right of self-government." "But," said opposition 
members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly 
declare that the people of the Territory may exclude 
slavery. ' ' ' ' Not we, " said the friends of the measi^re, 
and down they voted the amendment. 

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through 
Congress, a law case, involving the question of a 
negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having 
voluntarily taken him first into a free State, and 
then into a territory covered by the Congressional 
prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time 
in each, was passing through the United States 



4 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both 
Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision 
in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's 
name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates 
the decision finally made in the case. Before the 
then next Presidential election, the law case came 
to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the 
United States; but the decision of it was deferred 
until after the election. Still, before the election, 
Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, re- 
quested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill 
to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory 
can constitutionally exclude slavery from their 
limits ; and the latter answers : ' ' That is a question 
for the Supreme Court." 

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, 
and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That 
was the second point gained. The indorsement, 
however, fell short of a clear popular majority by 
nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, per- 
haps, was not overwhelmingly reHable and satis- 
factory. The outgoing President, in his last annual 
message, as impressively as possible echoed back 
upon the people the weight and authority of the 
indorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did 
not announce their decision, but ordered a reargu- 
ment. The Presidential inauguration came, and 
still no decision of the court; but the incoming 
President, in his inaugural address, fervently ex- 
horted the people to abide by the forthcoming 
decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few 
days, came the decision. 



Abraham Lincoln 5 

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an 
early occasion to make a speech at this capital in- 
dorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently 
denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, 
too, seizes the early occasion of the SiUiman letter 
to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and 
to express his astonishment that any different view 
had ever been entertained ! 

At length a squabble springs up between the 
President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the 
mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton Con- 
stitution was or was not in any just sense made by 
the people of Kansas ; and in that quarrel the latter 
declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, 
and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down 
or voted tip. I do not understand his declaration, 
that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or 
voted up, to be intended by him other than as an 
apt definition of the policy he would impress upon 
the public mind, — the principle for which he declares 
he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the 
end. And well may he cling to that principle! If 
he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. 
That principle is the only shred left of his original 
Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision 
"squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, 
tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the 
moidd at the foundry, served through one blast, 
and fell back into loose sand ; helped to carry an elec- 
tion, and then was kicked to the winds. His late 
joint struggle with the Republicans, against the 
Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the 



6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was 
made on a point — the right of a people to make 
their own constitution — upon which he and the 
Rejjublicans have never differed. 

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in 
connection with Senator Douglas's "care not " policy, 
constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state 
of advancement. This was the third point gained. 
The working points of that machinery are : 

Firstly, That no negro slave, imported as such 
from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can 
ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that 
term as used in the Constitution of the United States. 
This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in 
every possible event, of the benefit of that pro- 
vision of the United States Constitution which 
declares that "The citizens of each State shall be 
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens 
in the several States." 

Secondly, That, "subject to the Constitution of 
the United States," neither Congress nor a Terri- 
torial Legislature can exclude slavery from any 
United States Territory. This point is made in 
order that individual men may fill up the Terri- 
tories with slaves, without danger of losing them as 
property, and thus to enhance the chances of per- 
manency to the institution through all the future. 

Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in 
actual slavery in a free State makes him free, as 
against the holder, the United States courts will not 
decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of 
any slave State the negro may be forced into by the 



Abraham Lincoln 7 

master. This point is made, not to be pressed 
immediately; but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and 
apparently indorsed by the people at an election, 
then to sustain the logical conclusion that what 
Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred 
Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master 
may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand 
slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State. 

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand 
with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, 
is to educate and mould public opinion, at least 
Northern public opinion, not to care whether 
slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows 
exactly where we now are; and partially, also, 
whither we are tending. 

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go 
back and run the mind over the string of historical 
facts already stated. Several things will now ap- 
pear less dark and mysterious than they did when 
they were transpiring. The people were to be left 
"perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." 
What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders 
could not then see. Plainly enough now, — it was an 
exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to 
afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom 
of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why 
was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of 
the people, voted dow^n? Plainly enough now, — the 
adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the 
Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision 
held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion 
withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly 



8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

enough now, — the speaking out then w(Aild have 
damaged the " perfectly free " argument upon which 
the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing 
President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why 
the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming 
President's advance exhortation in favor of the de- 
cision? These things look like the cautious patting 
and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to 
mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give 
the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorse- 
ment of the decision by the President and others ? 

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact 
adaptations are the result of preconcert. But. when 
we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of 
which we know have been gotten out at different 
times and places and by different workmen, — 
Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance, — 
and when we see these timbers joined together, and 
see they exactly make the frame of a house oi a mill , 
all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all 
the lengths and proportions of the different pieces 
exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a 
piece too many or too few, — not omitting even 
scaffolding, — or, if a single piece be lacking, we see 
the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared 
yet to bring such piece in, — in such a case, we find 
it impossible not to belie v^e that Stephen and Frank- 
lin and Roger and James all understood one another 
from the beginning, and all worked upon a common 
plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was 
struck. 

It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska 



Abraham Lincoln 9 

Bill the people of a State as well as Territory were to 
be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Con- 
stitution." Why mention a State? They were 
legislating for Territories, and not for or about 
States. Certainly the people of a State are and 
ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United 
States; but why is mention of this lugged into this 
merely Territorial law? Why are the people of a 
Territory and the people of a State therein lumped 
together, and their relation to the Constitution 
therein treated as being precisely the same? While 
the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in 
the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of 
all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the 
Constitution of the United States neither permits 
Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to exclude 
slavery from any United States Territory, they 
all omit to declare w^hether or not the same Con- 
stitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to 
exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omission; but 
who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had 
sought to get into the opinion a declaration of un- 
limited power in the people of a State to exclude 
slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace 
sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the 
people of a Territory, into the Nebraska Bill, — I ask, 
who can be quite sure that it would not have been 
voted down in the one case as it had been in the 
other? The nearest approach to the point of declar- 
ing the power of a State over slavery is made by 
Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, 
using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, 



lo Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

of the Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact 
language is, "Except in cases where the power is 
restrained by the Constitution of the United States, 
the law of the State is supreme over the subject of 
slavery within its jurisdiction," In what cases the 
power of the States is so restrained by the United 
States Constitution, is left an open question, pre- 
cisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the 
power of the Territories, was left open in the Ne- 
braska Act. Put this and that together, and we 
have another nice little niche, which we may, ere 
long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, 
declaring that the Constitution of the United States 
does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its 
limits. And this may especially be expected if the 
doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted 
down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind 
sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can 
be maintained when made. 

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of 
being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome or 
unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and 
will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present 
political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. 
We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the 
people of Missouri are on the verge of making their 
State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead 
that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave 
State. To meet and overthrow the power of that 
dynasty is the work now before all those who would 
prevent that consummation. That is what we have 
to do. How can we best do it? 



Abraham Lincoln ii 

There are those who denounce us openly to their 
own friends, and yet whisper us softly that Senator 
Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which 
to effect that object. They wish us to mfer all, from 
the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the 
present head of the dynasty, and that he has regularly 
voted with us on a single point, upon which he and 
we have never differed. They remind us that he is 
a great man, and that the largest of us are very 
small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living 
dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if 
not a dead lion, for this work is at least a caged and 
toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of 
slavery? He don't care anN'^thing about it. His 
avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" 
to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Demo- 
cratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent 
will be needed to resist the revival of the African 
slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to 
revive that trade is approaching? He has not said 
so. Does he really think so ? But if it is, how can he 
resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a 
sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into 
the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it 
is less a sacred right to buy them where the}^ can be 
bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be 
bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has 
done all in his power to reduce the whole question of 
slavery to one of a mere right of property; and, as 
such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade, — - 
how can he refuse that trade in that "property" 
shall be "perfectly free," — unless he does it as a 



12 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

protection to the home production? And as the 
home producers will probably not ask the pro- 
tection, he will be wholly without a ground of 
opposition. 

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may 
rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday; 
that he may rightfull}^ change when he finds himself 
wrong. But can we, for that reason, nan ahead, and 
infer that he will make any particular change, of 
which he himself has given no intimation? Can we 
safely base our action upon any such vague infer- 
ence? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent 
Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or 
do aught that can be personally offensive to him. 
Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on 
principle so that our cause may have assistance from 
his great ability, I hope to have interposed no ad- 
ventitious obstacles. But clearly he is not now with 
us; he does not pretend to be,^ — he does not promise 
ever to be. 

fOuT cause, then, must be intnisted to, and con- 
ckicted by, its own undoubted friends, — those whose 
hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do 
care for the resultN Two years ago the Republicans 
of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thou- 
sand strong. We did this under the single impulse 
of resistance to a common danger, with every ex- 
ternal circumstance against us. Of strange, dis- 
cordant, and even hostile elements we gathered from 
the four winds, and formed and fought the battle 
through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, 
proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all 



Abraham Lincoln 13 

then to faUer now, — now, when that same enemy- 
is wavering, dissevered, and belHgerent? The result 
is not doubtful. We shall not fail ; if we stand firm, 
we shall not fail. Wise coimsels may accelerate, or 
mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later, the victory is 
sure to come. 



SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, 

On the Occasion of his Public Reception at Chicago, Friday 
Evening, July 9, 1858. (Mr. Lincoln was Present.) 

Mr. Douglas said, — 

Mr. Chairman and Fellow-Citizens: I can find 
no language which can adequately express my pro- 
found gratitude for the magnificent welcome which 
you have extended to me on this occasion. This 
vast sea of human faces indicates how deep an 
interest is felt by our people in the great questions 
which agitate the public mind, and which underlie 
the foundations of our free institutions. A reception 
like this, so great in numbers that no human voice 
can be heard to its countless thousands, — so enthu- 
siastic that no one individual can be the object of 
such enthusiasm, — clearly shows that there is some 
great principle which sinks deep in the heart of the 
masses, and involves the rights and the liberties of a 
whole people, that has brought you together with 
a unanimity and a cordiality never before excelled, 
if, indeed, equalled, on any occasion. I have not the 
vanity to believe that it is any personal compliment 
to me. 

It is an expression of your devotion to that great 
principle of self-government, to which my life for 
many years past has been, and in the future will be, 
devoted. If there is any one principle dearer and 
more sacred than all others in free governments, it is 

14 



Stephen A. Douglas 15 

that which asserts the exclusive right of a free people 
to form and adopt their own fundamental law, and 
to manage and regulate their own internal affairs 
and domestic institutions. 

When I found an effort being made during the 
recent session of Congress to force a constitution upon 
the people of Kansas against their will, and to force 
that State into the Union with a constitution which 
her people had rejected by more than ten thousand, 
I felt bound as a man of honor and a representative 
of Illinois, bound by every consideration of duty, of 
fidelity, and of patriotism, to resist to the utmost of 
my power the consummation of that fraud. With 
others, I did resist it, and resisted it successfully 
until the attempt was abandoned. We forced them 
to refer that constitution back to the people of 
Kansas, to be accepted or rejected as they shall 
decide at an election which is fixed for the first 
Monday in August next. It is true that the mode 
of reference, and the form of the submission, was not 
such as I could sanction with my vote, for the reason 
that it discriminated between free States and slave 
States ; providing that if Kansas consented to come 
in under the Lecompton Constitution it should be 
received with a population of thirty -five thousand; 
but that if she demanded another constitution, 
more consistent with the sentiments of her people 
and their feelings, that it should not be received into 
the Union until she had 93,420 inhabitants. I did 
not consider that mode of submission fair, for the 
reason that any election is a mockery which is not 
free, that any election is a fraud upon the rights of 



i6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the people which holds out inducements for affirma- 
tive votes, and threatens penalties for negative votes. 
But whilst I was not satisfied with the mode of sub- 
mission, whilst I resisted it to the last, demanding 
a fair, a just, a free mode of submission, still, when 
the law passed placing it within the power of the 
people of Kansas at that election to reject the 
Lecompton Constitution, and then make another in 
harmony with their principles and their opinions, I 
did not believe that either the penalties on the one 
hand, or the inducements on the other, would force 
that people to accept a constitution to which they 
are irreconcilably opposed. All I can say is, that 
if their votes can be controlled by such considerations 
all the sympathy which has been expended upon 
them has been misplaced, and all the efforts that have 
been made in defence of their right to self-govern- 
ment have been made in an unworthy cause. 

Hence, my friends, I regard the Lecompton battle 
as having been fought, and the victory won, because 
the arrogant demand for the admission of Kansas 
under the Lecompton Constitution unconditionally, 
whether her people wanted it or not, has been 
abandoned, and the principle which recognizes the 
right of the people to decide for themselves has been 
submitted in its place. 

Fellow-citizens, while I devoted my best energies 
— all my energies, mental and physical — to the 
vindication of the great principle, and whilst the 
result has been such as will enable the people of 
Kansas to come into the Union with such a constitu- 
tion as they desire, yet the credit of this great moral 



Stephen A. Douglas 17 

victory is to be divided among a large number of men 
of various and different political creeds. I was 
rejoiced when I found in this great contest the 
Republican party coming up manfully and sustaining 
the principle that the people of each Territory, when 
coming into the Union, have the right to decide for 
themselves whether slaver}^ shall or shall not exist 
within their limits. I have seen the time when that 
principle was controverted. I have seen the time 
when all parties did not recognize the right of a 
people to have slavery or freedom, to tolerate or pro- 
hibit slavery as they deemed best, but claimed that 
power for the Congress of the United States, regard- 
less of the wishes of the people to be affected by it; 
and when I found upon the Crittenden-Montgomery 
bill the Republicans and Americans of the North, 
and I may say, too, some glorious Americans and 
old-line Whigs from the South, like Crittenden and 
his patriotic associates, joined with a portion of the 
Democracy to carry out and vindicate the right of 
the people to decide whether slavery should or should 
not exist within the limits of Kansas, I was rejoiced 
within my secret soul, for I saw an indication that 
the American people, when they came to understand 
the principle, would give it their cordial support. 

The Crittenden-Montgomery bill was as fair and as 
perfect an exposition of the doctrine of popular 
sovereignty as could be carried out by any bill that 
man ever devised. It proposed to refer the Le- 
compton Constitution back to the people of Kansas, 
and give them the right to accept or reject it as they 
pleased, at a fair election, held in pursuance of law, 



Lincoln and Douelas Debates 



t>' 



and in the event of their rejecting it, and forming 
another in its stead, to permit them to come into the 
Union on an equal footing with the original States. 
It was fair and just in all of its provisions. I gave 
it my cordial support, and was rejoiced when I found 
that it passed the House of Representatives, and at 
one time I entertained high hope that it would pass 
the Senate. 

I regard the great principle of popular sovereignty 
as having been vindicated and made triumphant 
in this land as a permanent rule of public policy in 
the organization of Territories and the admission of 
new States. Illinois took her position upon this 
principle many years ago. You all recollect that in 
1850, after the passage of the Compromise measures 
of that year, when I returned to my home there was 
great dissatisfaction expressed at my course in sup- 
porting those measures. I appeared before the 
people of Chicago at a mass meeting, and vindicated 
each and every one of those measures; and by 
reference to my speech on that occasion, which 
was printed and circulated broadcast throughout 
the State at the time, you will find that I then and 
there said that those measures were all founded upon 
the great principle that every people ought to 
possess the right to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions in their own way, and that, 
that right being possessed by the people of the States, 
I saw no reason why the same principle should 
not be extended to all of the Territories of the 
United States. A general election was held in this 
State a few months aftenvards, for members of the 



Stephen A. Douglas 19 

Legislature, pending which all these questions were 
thoroughly canvassed and discussed, and the nomi- 
nees of the different parties instructed in regard to 
the wishes of their constituents upon them. When 
that election was over, and the Legislature assem- 
bled, they proceeded to consider the merits of those 
Compromise measures, and the principles upon which 
they were predicated. And what was the result of 
their action? They passed resolutions, first repeal- 
ing the Wilmot Proviso instructions, and in lieu 
thereof adopted another resolution, in which they 
declared the great principle which asserts the right 
of the people to make their own form of government 
and establish their own institutions. That resolu- 
tion is as follows: 

Resolved, That our liberty and independence are based 
upon the right of the people to form for themselves such 
a government as they may choose; that this great prin- 
ciple, the birthright of freemen, the gift of Heaven, se- 
cured to us by the blood of our ancestors, ought to be 
secured to future generations, and no limitation ought to 
be applied to this power in the organization of any Terri- 
tory of the United States, of either Territorial Govern- 
ment or State Constitution, provided the Government so 
established shall be republican, and in conformity with 
the Constitution of the United States. 

That resolution, declaring the great principle of 
self-government as applicable to the Territories and 
new States, passed the House of Representatives of 
this State by a vote of sixty -one in the affirmative, to 
only four in the negative. Thus you find that an 



20 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

expression of public opinion — enlightened, edu- 
cated, intelligent public opinion — on this question, 
by the representatives of Illinois in 1851, approaches 
nearer to unanimity than has ever been obtained 
on any controverted question. That resolution was 
entered on the journal of the Legislature of the State 
of Illinois, and it has remained there from that day 
to this, a standing instruction to her Senators, and a 
request to her Representatives, in Congress to carry 
out that principle in all future cases. Illinois, there- 
fore, stands pre-eminent as the State which stepped 
forward early and established a platform applicable 
to this slavery question, concurred in alike by Whigs 
and Democrats, in which it was declared to be the 
wish of our people that thereafter the people of the 
Territories should be left perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, and that no limitation should be placed upon 
that right in any form. 

Hence what was my duty in 1854, when it became 
necessary to bring forward a bill for the organization 
of the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska? Was 
it not my duty, in obedience to the Illinois platform, 
to your standing instructions to your Senators, 
adopted with almost entire unanimity, to incor- 
porate in that bill the great principle of self-govern- 
ment, declaring that it was "the true intent and 
meaning of the Act not to legislate slavery into any 
State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but 
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own 
way, subject only to the Constitution of the United 



Stephen A. Douglas 21 

States"? I did incorporate that principle in the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and perhaps I did as much 
as any living man in the enactment of that bill, thus 
establishing the doctrine in the public policy of the 
country. I then defended that principle against as- 
saults from one section of the Union. During this 
last winter it became my duty to vindicate it against 
assaults from the other section of the Union. I 
vindicated it boldly and fearlessly, as the people of 
Chicago can bear witness, when it was assailed by 
Free-soilers; and during this winter I vindicated and 
defended it as boldly and fearlessly when it was 
attempted to be violated by the almost united South. 
I pledged myself to you on every stump in Illinois 
in 1854, 1 pledged myself to the people of other States 
north and south, wherever I spoke; and in the 
United States Senate and elsewhere, in every form in 
which I could reach the public mind or the public 
ear, I gave the pledge that I, so far as the power 
should be in my hands, would vindicate the prin- 
ciple of the right of the people to form their own 
institutions, to establish free States or slave States 
as they chose, and that that principle should never 
be violated either by fraud, by violence, by circum- 
vention, or by any other means, if it was in my 
power to prevent it. I now submit to you, my 
fellow-citizens, whether I have not redeemed that 
pledge in good faith. Yes, my friends, I have 
redeemed it in good faith; and it is a matter of 
heartfelt gratification to me to see these assem- 
bled thousands here to-night bearing their testimony 
to the fidelity with which I have advocated that 



22 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

principle, and redeemed my pledges in connection 
with it. 

I will be entirely frank with you. My object was 
to secure the right of the people of each State and 
of each Territory, north or south, to decide the 
question for themselves, to have slavery or not, just 
as they chose ; and my opposition to the Lecompton 
Constitution was not predicated upon the ground 
that it was a pro -slavery constitution, nor would my 
action have been different had it been a Free -soil 
constitution. My speech against the Lecompton 
fraud was made on the 9th of December, while the 
vote on the slavery clause in that constitution was 
not taken until the 21st of the same month, nearly 
two weeks after. I made my speech against the 
Lecompton monstrosity solely on the ground that it 
was a violation of the fundamental principles of free 
government; on the ground that it was not the act 
and deed of the people of Kansas; that it did not 
embody their will ; that they were averse to it ; and 
hence I denied the right of Congress to force it upon 
them, either as a free State or a slave State. I 
deny the right of Congress to force a slaveholding 
State upon an unwilling people. I deny their right 
to force a free State upon an unwilling people. I 
deny their right to force a good thing upon a people 
who are unwilling to receive it. The great principle 
is the right of every community to judge and decide 
for itself whether a thing is right or wrong, whether 
it would be good or evil for them to adopt it; and 
the right of free action, the right of free thought, the 
right of free judgment, upon the question is dearer to 



Stephen A. Douglas 23 

every true American than any other under a free 
government. My objection to the Lecompton con- 
trivance was that it vmdertook to put a constitution 
on the people of Kansas against their will, in op- 
position to their wishes, and thus violated the great 
principle upon which all our institutions rest. It 
is no answer to this argtiment to say that slavery is 
an evil, and hence should not be tolerated. You 
must allow the people to decide for themselves 
whether it is a good or an evil. You allow them to 
decide for themselves whether they desire a Maine 
liquor law or not; you allow them to decide for 
themselves what kind of common schools they will 
have, what system of banking they will adopt, or 
whether they will adopt any at all; you allow them 
to decide for themselves the relations between 
husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and 
ward, — in fact, you allow them to decide for them- 
selves all other questions: and why not upon this 
question ? Whenever you put a limitation upon the 
right of any people to decide what laws they want, 
you have destroyed the fundamental principle of self- 
government. 

In connection with this subject, perhaps, it will not 
be improper for me on this occasion to allude to the 
position of those who have chosen to arraign my 
conduct on this same subject. I have observed from 
the public prints that but a few days ago the Re- 
publican party of the State of Illinois assembled in 
Convention at Springfield, and not only laid down 
their platform, but nominated a candidate for the 
United States Senate, as my successor. I take 



24 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

great pleasure in saying that I have known, person- 
ally and intimately, for about a quarter of a century, 
the worthy gentleman who has been nominated 
for my place, and I will say that I regard him as a 
kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, a good 
citizen and an honorable opponent; and whatever 
issue I may have with him will be of principle, and 
not involving personalities. Mr. Lincoln made a 
speech before that Republican Convention which 
unanimously nominated him for the Senate, — a 
speech evidently well prepared and carefully written, 
— in which he states the basis upon which he pro- 
poses to carry on the campaign during this summer. 
In it he lays down two distinct propositions which I 
shall notice, and upon which I shall take a direct 
and bold issue with him. 

His first and main proposition I will give in his 
own language. Scripture quotations and all [laugh- 
ter] ; I give his exact language : ' " A house divided 
against itself cannot stand.' I believe this govern- 
ment cannot endure, permanently, half slave and 
half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, 
I do not expect the house to jail; but I do expect it 
to cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, 
or all the other." 

In other words, Mr. Lincoln asserts, as a funda- 
mental principle of this government, that there 
must be uniformity in the local laws and domestic 
institutions of each and all the States of the Union; 
and he therefore invites all the non-slaveholding 
States to band together, organize as one body, and 
make war upon slavery in Kentucky, upon slavery in 



Stephen A. Douglas 25 

Virginia, upon the CaroUnas, upon slavery in all of 
the slaveholding States in this Union, and to per- 
severe in that war until it shall be exterminated. 
He then notifies the slaveholding States to stand 
together as a unit and make an aggressive war upon 
the free States of this Union with a view of estab- 
lishing slavery in them all ; of forcing it upon Illinois, 
of forcing it upon New York, upon New England, 
and upon every other free State, and that they shall 
keep up the warfare until it has been formally estab- 
lished in them all. In other words, Mr. Lincoln 
advocates boldly and clearly a war of sections, a war 
of the North against the South, of the free States 
against the slave States, — a war of extermination, 
to be continued relentlessly until the one or the other 
shall be subdued, and all the States shall either 
become free or become slave. 

Now, my friends, I must say to you frankly that 
I take bold, unqualified issue with him upon that 
principle. I assert that it is neither desirable nor 
possible that there should be uniformity in the local 
institutions and domestic regulations of the different 
States of the Union. The framers of our govern- 
ment never contemplated uniformity in its internal 
concerns. The fathers of the Revolution and the 
sages who made the Constitution well understood 
that the laws and domestic institutions which would 
suit the granite hills of New Hampshire would be 
totally unfit for the rice plantations of South Caro- 
lina ; they well understood that the laws which would 
suit the agricultural districts of Pennsylvania and 
New York would be totally unfit for the large 



26 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

mining regions of the Pacific, or the lumber regions of 
Maine. They well understood that the great varieties 
of soil, of production, and of interests in a republic 
as large as this, required different local and domestic 
regulations in each locality, adapted to the wants 
and interests of each separate State; and for that 
reason it was provided in the Federal Constitu- 
tion that the thirteen original States should remain 
sovereign and supreme within their own limits in 
regard to all that was local and internal and do- 
mestic, while the Federal Government should have 
certain specified powers which were general and 
national, and could be exercised only by Federal 
authority. 

The framers of the Constitution well understood 
that each locality, having separate and distinct inter- 
ests, required separate and distinct laws, domestic 
institutions, and police regulations adapted to its 
own wants and its own condition ; and they acted 
on the presumption, also, that these laws and in- 
stitutions would be as diversified and as dissimilar 
as the States would be numerous, and that no two 
would be precisely alike, because the interests of no 
two would be precisely the same. Hence I assert 
that the great fundamental principle which underlies 
our complex system of State and Federal govern- 
ments contemplated diversity and dissimilarity in 
the local institutions and domestic affairs of each 
and every State then in the Union, or thereafter to 
be admitted iiito the Confederacy. I therefore con- 
ceive that my friend Mr. Lincoln has totally mis- 
apprehended the great principles upon which our 



Stephen A. Douglas 27 

government rests. Uniformity in local and domestic 
affairs would be destructive of State rights, of State 
sovereignty, of personal liberty and personal freedom. 
Uniformity is the parent of despotism the world 
over, not only in politics, but in religion. Wherever 
the doctrine of uniformity is proclaimed, that all 
the States must be free or all slave, that all labor 
must be white or all black, that all the citizens of 
the different States must have the same privileges or 
be governed by the same regulations, you have 
destroyed the greatest safeguard which our institu- 
tions have thrown around the rights of the citizen. 

How could this uniformity be accomplished, if it 
was desirable and possible? There is but one mode 
in which it could be obtained, and that must be by 
abolishing the State legislatures, blotting out State 
sovereignty, merging the rights and sovereignty of 
the States in one consolidated empire, and vesting 
Congress with the plenary power to make all the 
police regulations, domestic and local laws, uniform 
throughout the limits of the Republic. When you 
shall have done this, you will have uniformity. 
Then the States will all be slave or all be free ; then 
negroes will vote ever\"where or nowhere; then you 
will have a Maine liquor law in every State or none ; 
then you will have uniformity in all things, local and 
domestic, by the authority of the Federal Govern- 
ment. But when you attain that uniformity, you 
will have converted these thirty-two sovereign, in- 
dependent States into one consolidated empire, 
with the uniformity of despotism reigning triumph- 
ant throughout the length and breadth of the land. 



28 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

From this view of the case, my friends, I am 
driven irresistibly to the conclusion that diversity, 
dissimilarity, variety, in all our local and domestic 
institutions is the great safeguard of our liberties, 
and that the framers of our institutions were wise, 
sagacious, and patriotic w^hen they made this govern- 
ment a confederation of sovereign States, with a 
legislature for each, and conferred upon each legisla- 
ture the power to make all local and domestic insti- 
tutions to suit the people it represented, without 
interference from any other State or from the 
general Congress of the Union. If we expect to 
maintain our liberties, we must preserve the rights 
and sovereignty of the States; we must maintain 
and carry out that great principle of self-govern- 
ment incorporated in the Compromise measures of 
1850, indorsed by the Illinois Legislature in 1851, 
emphatically embodied and carried out in the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill, and vindicated this year by 
the refusal to bring Kansas into the Union with a 
constitution distasteful to her people. 

The other proposition discussed by Mr. Lincoln in 
his speech consists in a crusade against the Supreme 
Court of the United States on account of the Dred 
Scott decision. On this question also I desire to 
say to you unequivocally that I take direct and 
distinct issue with him. I have no warfare to make 
on the Supreme Court of the United States, either on 
account of that or any other decision which they 
have pronounced from that bench. The Constitu- 
tion of the United States has provided that the 
powers of government (and the constitution of each 



Stephen A. Douglas 29 

State has the same provision) shall be divided into 
three departments, — executive, legislative, and ju- 
dicial. The right and the province of expounding 
the Constitution and construing the law is vested 
in the judiciary established by the Constitution. 
As a lawyer, I feel at liberty to appear before the 
court and controvert any principle of law while the 
question is pending before the tribunal ; but when 
the decision is made, my private opinion, your 
opinion, all other opinions, must yield to the majesty 
of that authoritative adjudication. I wish you to 
bear in mind that this involves a great principle, 
upon which our rights, our liberty, and our property 
all depend. What security have you for your 
property, for your reputation, and for your personal 
rights, if the courts are not upheld, and their de- 
cisions respected when once fairly rendered by the 
highest tribunal known to the Constitution? I do 
not choose, therefore, to go into any argument with 
Mr. Lincoln in reviewing the various decisions which 
the Supreme Court has made, either upon the Dred 
Scott case or any other. I have no idea of appealing 
from the decision of the Supreme Court upon a 
constitutional question to the decisions of a tumultu- 
ous town meeting. I am aware that once an eminent 
law^^er of this city, now no more, said that the State 
of Illinois had the most perfect judicial system in the 
world, subject to but one exception, which could be 
cured by a slight amendment, and that amendment 
was to so change the law as to allow an appeal from 
the decisions of the Supreme Court of Illinois, on all 
constitutional questions, to justices of the peace. 



30 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

My friend Mr. Lincoln, who sits behind me, re- 
minds me that that proposition was made when I was 
judge of the Supreme Court. Be that as it may, I 
do not think that fact adds any greater weight or 
authority to the suggestion. It matters not with 
me who was on the bench, whether Mr. Lincoln or 
myself, whether a Lockwood or a Smith, a Taney or 
a Marshall; the decision of the highest tribunal 
known to the Constitution of the country must be 
final till it has been reversed by an equally high 
authority. Hence, I am opposed to this doctrine of 
Mr. Lincoln b}^ which he proposes to take an appeal 
from the decision of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, upon this high constitutional question, to a 
Repubhcan caucus sitting in the country. Yes, or 
any other caucus or town meeting, whether it be 
Repubhcan, American, or Democratic. I respect 
the decisions of that august tribunal; I shall always 
bow in deference to them. I am a law-abiding man. 
I will sustain the Constitution of my country as our 
fathers have made it. I will yield obedience to the 
laws, whether I like them or not, as I find them on 
the statute book. I will sustain the judicial tri- 
bunals and constituted authorities in all matters 
within the pale of their jurisdiction as defined by the 
Constitution. 

But I am equally free to say that the reason as- 
signed by Mr. Lincoln for resisting the decision of the 
Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case does not in it- 
self meet my approbation. He objects to it because 
that decision declared that a negro descended from 
African parents, who were brought here and sold 



Stephen A. Douglas 31 

as slaves, is not and cannot be a citizen of the United 
States. He says it is wrong because it deprives 
the negro of the benefits of that clause of the Con- 
stitution which says that citizens of one State shall 
enjoy all the privileges and immunities of citizens of 
the several States ; in other words, he thinks it wrong 
because it deprives the negro of the privileges, 
immunities, and rights of citizenship, which pertain, 
according to that decision, only to the white man. 
I am free to say to you that in my opinion this 
government of ours is founded on the white basis. 
It was made by the white man, for the benefit of the 
white man, to be administered by white men, in such 
manner as they should determine. It is also true 
that a negro, an Indian, or any other man of inferior 
race to a white man should be permitted to enjoy, 
and humanity requires that he should have, all the 
rights, privileges, and immunities which he is capa- 
ble of exercising consistent with the safety of so- 
ciety. I would give him every right and every 
privilege which his capacity would enable him to 
enjoy, consistent with the good of the society in 
which he lived. But 3^ou ask me, What are these 
rights and these privile^ges? My answer is, that 
each State must decide for itself the nature and 
extent of these rights. Illinois has decided for 
herself. We have decided that the negro shall not 
be a slave, and we have at the same time decided 
that he shall not vote, or serve on juries, or enjoy 
political privileges. I am content with that system 
of policy which we have adopted for ourselves. I 
deny the right of any other State to complain of our 



32 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

policy in that respect, or to interfere with it, or to 
attempt to change it. On the other hand, the State 
of Maine has decided that in that State a negro man 
may vote on an equality with the white man. The 
sovereign power of Maine had the right to prescribe 
that rule for herself. Illinois has no right to com- 
plain of Maine for conferring the right of negro 
suffrage, nor has Maine any right to interfere with 
or complain of Illinois because she has denied negro 
suffrage. 

The State of New York has decided by her con- 
stitution that a negro may vote, provided that he 
own $250 worth of property, but not otherwise. 
The rich negro can vote, but the poor one cannot. 
Although that distinction does not commend itself 
to my judgment, yet I assert that the sovereign 
power of New York had a right to prescribe that 
form of the elective franchise. Kentucky, Virginia, 
and other States have provided that negroes, or a 
certain class of them in those States, shall be slaves, 
having neither civil nor political rights. Without 
indorsing the wisdom of that decision, I assert that 
Virginia has the same power, by virtue of her 
sovereignty, to protect slavery within her limits as 
Illinois has to banish it forever from our own borders. 
I assert the right of each State to decide for itself on 
all these questions, and I do not subscribe to the 
doctrine of my friend Mr. Lincoln, that uniformity is 
either desirable or possible. I do not acknowledge 
that the States must all be tree or must all be slave. 

I do not acknowledge that the negro must have 
civil and political rights ever3^where or nowhere. I 



Stephen A. Douglas 33 

do not acknowledge that the Chinese must have the 
same rights in Cahfomia that we would confer upon 
him here. I do not acknow^ledge that the coolie 
imported into this country must necessarily be put 
upon an equality with the white race. I do not 
acknowledge any of these doctrines of uniformity in 
the local and domestic regulations in the different 
States. 

Thus you see, my fellow-citizens, that the issues 
between Mr. Lincoln and myself, as respective 
candidates for the United States Senate, as made 
up, are direct, unequivocal, and irreconcilable. He 
goes for uniformity in our domestic institutions, for 
a war of sections, until one or the other shall be 
subdued. I go for the great principle of the Kansas- 
Nebraska Bill, — the right of the people to decide for 
themselves. 

On the other point, Mr. Lincoln goes for a warfare 
upon the Supreme Court of the United States be- 
cause of their judicial decision in the Dred Scott 
case. I yield obedience to the decisions in that 
court, — to the final determination of the highest 
judicial tribunal known to our Constitution. He 
objects to the Dred Scott decision because it does 
not put the negro in the possession of the rights 
of citizenship on an equality with the white man. 
I am opposed to negro equality. I repeat that this 
nation is a white people, — a people composed of 
European descendants, a people that have estab- 
lished this government for themselves and their 
posterity, — and I am in favor of preserving, not 
only the purity of the blood, but the purity of the 

si) 



34 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

government from any mixture or amalgamation 
with inferior races. I have seen the effects of this 
mixture of superior and inferior races, this amalga- 
mation of white men and Indians and negroes; we 
have seen it in Mexico, in Central America, in South 
America, and in all the Spanish-American States; 
and its result has been degeneration, demoraliza- 
tion, and degradation below the capacity for self- 
government. 

I am opposed to taking any step that recognizes 
the negro man or the Indian as the equal of the 
white man. I am opposed to giving him a voice 
in the administration of the government. I would 
extend to the negro and the Indian and to all 
dependent races every right, every privilege, and 
every immunity consistent with the safety and wel- 
fare of the white races; but equality they never 
should have, either political or social, or in any other 
respect whatever. 

My friends, you see that the issues are distinctly 
drawn. I stand by the same platform that I have so 
often proclaimed to you and to the people of Illinois 
heretofore. I stand by the Democratic organiza- 
tion, yield obedience to its usages, and support its 
regular nominations. I indorse and approve the 
Cincinnati platform, and I adhere to and intend to 
carry out, as part of that platform, the great princi- 
ple of self-government, which recognizes the right of 
the people in each State and Territory to decide for 
themselves their domestic institutions. In other 
words, if the Lecompton issue shall arise again, you 
have only to turn back and see where you have 



Stephen A. Douglas 35 

found me during the last six months, and then rest 
assured that you will find me in the same position, 
battling for the same principle, and vindicating it 
from assault from whatever quarter it may come, 
so long as I have the power to do it. 

Fellow-citizens, you now have before you the out- 
lines of the propositions which I intend to discuss 
before the people of Illinois during the pending 
campaign. I have spoken without preparation and 
in a very desultory manner, and may have omitted 
some points which I desired to discuss, and may 
have been less explicit on others than I could have 
wished. I have made up my mind to appeal to the 
people against the combination which has been 
made against me. The Republican leaders have 
formed an alliance — an unholy, unnatural alliance — 
with a portion of the unscrupulous Federal office- 
holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever 
I meet them. I know they deny the alliance, while 
avoiding the common purpose; but yet these men 
who are trying to divide the Democratic party for 
the purpose of electing a Republican Senator in my 
place are just as much the agents, the tools, the 
supporters of Mr. Lincoln as if they were avowed 
Republicans, and expect their reward for their 
services when the Republicans come into power. I 
shall deal with these allied forces just as the Russians 
dealt with the Allies at Sebastopol. The Russians, 
when they fired a broadside at the common enemy, 
did not stop to inquire whether it hit a French- 
man, an Englishman, or a Turk, nor will I stop, nor 
shall I stop to inquire whether my blows hit the 



36 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Republican leaders or their allies, who are holding 
the Federal offices and yet acting in concert with the 
Republicans to defeat the Democratic party and its 
nominees. I do not include all of the Federal office- 
holders in this remark. Such of them as are Demo- 
crats and show their Democracy by remaining inside 
of the Democratic organization and supporting its 
nominees, I recognize as Democrats; but those who, 
having been defeated inside of the organization, go 
outside and attempt to divide and destroy the party 
in concert with the Republican leaders, have ceased 
to be Democrats, and belong to the allied army, 
whose avowed object is to elect the Republican 
ticket by dividing and destroying the Democratic 
party. 

My friends, I have exhausted myself, and I cer- 
tainly have fatigued you, in the long and desultory 
remarks which I have made. It is now two nights 
since I have been in bed, and I think I have a right to 
a little sleep. I will, however, have an opportunity 
of meeting you face to face, and addressing you on 
more than one occasion before the November elec- 
tion. In conclusion, I must again sa}^ to you, justice 
to my own feelings demands it, that my gratitude 
for the welcome you have extended to me on this 
occasion knows no bounds, and can be described by 
no language which I can command. I see that I am 
literally at home when among my constituents. 
This welcome has amply repaid me for every effort 
that I have made in the public service during 
nearly twenty-five years that I have held office at 
your hands. It not only compensates me for the 



Stephen A. Douglas 37 

past, but it furnishes an inducement and incentive 
for future efforts which no man, no matter how 
patriotic, can feel who has not witnessed the mag- 
nificent reception you have extended to me to-night 
on my return. 



..-^p 



SPEECH OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 

IN REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS. 

Delivered at Chicago, Saturday Evening, July io, 1858, (Mr. 
Douglas was not present.) 

Mr. Lincoln was introduced by C. L. Wilson, 
Esq., and as he made his appearance he was greeted 
with a perfect storm of applause. For some mo- 
ments the enthusiasm continued unabated. At 
last, when by a wave of his hand partial silence was 
restored, Mr. Lincoln said, — 

My Fellow-Citizens: On yesterday evening, 
upon the occasion of the reception given to Senator 
Douglas, I was furnished with a seat very convenient 
for hearing him, and was otherwise very courteously 
treated by him and his friends, and for which I thank 
him and them. During the course of his remarks 
my name was mentioned in such a way as, I suppose, 
renders it at least not improper that I should make 
some sort of reply to him. I shall not attempt to 
follow him in the precise order in which he addressed 
the assembled multitude upon that occasion, though 
I shall perhaps do so in the main. 

There was one question to which he asked the 
attention of the crowd, which I deem of somewhat 
less importance — at least of propriety^ — for me to 
dwell upon than the others, which he brought in near 
the close of his speech, and which I think it would 
not be entirely proper for me to omit attending to, 

38 



Abraham Lincoln 39 

and yet if I were not to give some attention to it now, 
I should probably forget it altogether. While I am 
upon this subject, allow me to say that I do not 
intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode some- 
times adopted in public speaking, of reading from 
documents; but I shall depart from that rule so far 
as to read a little scrap from his speech, which 
notices this first topic of which I shall speak, — that 
is, provided I can find it in the paper: 

" I have made up my mind to appeal to the people 
against the combination that has been made against me ; 
the Republican leaders having formed an alliance — an un- 
holy and unnatural alliance — with a portion of unscru- 
pulous Federal office-holders. I intend to fight that 
allied army wherever I meet them. I know they deny the 
alliance ; but yet these men who are trying to divide the 
Democratic party for the purpose of electing a Repub- 
lican Senator in my place are just as much the agents and 
tools of the supporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall 
deal with this allied army just as the Russians dealt with 
the Allies at Sebastopol, — -that is, the Russians did not 
stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether it 
hit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will I 
stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows 
shall hit the Republican leaders or their allies, who are 
holding the Federal offices, and yet acting in concert with 
them." 

Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming ?- 
Just to think of it! right at the outset of his canvass, 
I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman, — I 
am to be slain in this way! Why, my friend the 
Judge is not only, as it turns out, not a dead lion, 



40 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

nor even a living cne, — he is the rugged Russian 
Bear! 

But if they will have it — for he says that we deny 
it — that there is any such alliance, as he says there 
is, — and I don't propose hanging very much upon 
this question of veracity, — but if he will have it that 
there is such an alliance, that the Administration 
men and we are allied, and we stand in the attitude 
of English, French, and Turk, he occupying the 
position of the Russian, in that case I beg that he 
will indulge us while we barely suggest to him that 
these allies took Sebastopol. 

Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this 
alliance. For my part, I have to say that whether 
there be such an alliance depends, so far as I know, 
upon what may be a right definition of the term 
" alliance." If for the Republican party to see the 
other great party to which they are opposed divided 
among themselves, and not try to stop the division, 
and rather be glad of it, — if that is an alliance, I 
confess I am in; but if it is meant to be said that 
the Republicans had formed an alliance going beyond 
that, by which there is contribution of money or 
sacrifice of principle on the one side or the other, so 
far as the Republican party is concerned, — if there 
be any such thing, I protest that I neither know any- 
thing of it, nor do I believe it. I will, however, 
say, — as I think this branch of the argument is 
lugged in,- — I would before I leave it state, for the 
benefit of those concerned, that one of those same 
Buchanan men did once tell me of an argument that 
he made for his opposition to Judge Douglas. He 



Abraham Lincoln 41 

said that a friend of our Senator Douglas had been 
talking to him, and had, among other things, said to 
him: "Why, you don't want to beat Douglas?" 
"Yes," said he, "I do want to beat him, and I will 
tell you why. I believe his original Nebraska Bill 
was right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the 
time that it was brought forward. It was wrong in 
the application to a Territory in regard to which the 
question had been settled; it was brought forward 
at a time when nobody asked him; it was tendered 
to the South when the South had not asked for it, 
but when they could not well refuse it; and for this 
same reason he forced that question upon our party. 
It has sunk the best men all over the nation, every- 
where ; and now, when our President, struggling with 
the difficulties of this man's getting up, has reached 
the very hardest point to turn in the case, he deserts 
him and I am for putting him where he will trouble 
us no more." 

Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument; that 
is not my argument at all. I have only been stating 
to you the argument of a Buchanan man. You will 
judge if there is any force in it. 

Popular sovereignty! everlasting popular sover- 
eignty! Let us for a moment inquire into this vast 
matter of popular sovereignty. What is popular 
sovereignty ? We recollect that at an early period in 
the history of this struggle there was another name 
for the same thing, — "squatter sovereignty." It 
was not exactly popular sovereignty, but squatter 
sovereignty. What do those terms mean ? What do 
those terms mean when used now ? And vast credit 



42 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

is taken by our friend the Judge in regard to his sup- 
port of it, when he declares the last years of his life 
have been, and all the future years of his life shall 
be, devoted to this matter of popular sovereignty. 
What is it? Why, it is the sovereignty of the peo- 
ple! What was squatter sovereignty? I suppose, 
if it had any significance at all, it was the right of the 
people to govern themselves, to be sovereign in their 
own affairs while they were squatted down in a 
country not their own, while they had squatted on 
a Territory that did not belong to them, in the sense 
that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it, — 
when it belonged to the nation ; such right to govern 
themselves was called "squatter sovereignty." 

Now, I wish you to mark: What has become of 
that squatter sovereignty ? What has become of it ? 
Can you get anybody to tell you now that the people 
of a Territory have any authority to govern them- 
selves, in regard to this mooted question of slavery, 
before they form a State constitution? No such 
thing at all ; although there is a general running fire, 
and although there has been a hurrah made in every 
speech on that side, assuming that policy had given 
the people of a Territory the right to govern them- 
selves upon this question, yet the point is dodged. 
To-day it has been decided — no more than a year 
ago it was decided — ^by the Supreme Court of the 
United States, and is insisted upon to-day that 
the people of a Territory have no right to exclude 
slavery from a Territory; that if any one man 
chooses to take slaves into a Territory, all the rest 
of the people have no right to keep them out. This 



Abraham^ Lincoln 43 

being so, and this decision being made one of the 
points that the Judge approved, and one in the 
approval of which he says he means to keep me 
down, — put me down I should not say, for I have 
never been up, — he says he is in favor of it, and 
sticks to it, and expects to win his battle on that 
decision, which says that there is no such thing as 
squatter sovereignty, but that any one man may 
take slaves into a Territory, and all the other men in 
the Territory may be opposed to it, and yet by 
reason of the Constitution they cannot prohibit it. 
When that is so, how much is left of this vast matter 
of squatter sovereignty, I should Uke to know ? 

When we get back, we get to the point of the right 
of the people to make a constitution. Kansas was 
settled, for example, in 1854. It was a Territory 
yet, without having formed a constitution, in a very 
regular way, for three years. All this time negro 
slavery could be taken in by any few individuals, 
and by that decision of the Supreme Court, which 
the Judge approves, all the rest of the people cannot 
keep it out; but when they come to make a con- 
stitution, they may say they will not have slavery. 
But it is there; they are obliged to tolerate it some 
way, and all experience shows it will be so, for they 
will not take the negro slaves and absolutely deprive 
the owners of them. All experience shows this to 
be so. All that space of time that runs from the 
beginning of the settlement of the Territory until 
there is sufficiency of people to make a State con- 
stitution, — all that portion of time popular sover- 
eignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put 



44 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

down upon it by the court decision, and Judge 
Douglas puts his own upon the top of that; yet 
he is appealing to the people to give him vast credit 
for his devotion to popular sovereignty. 

Again, when we get to the question of the right of 
the people to form a State constitution as they 
please, to form it with slavery or without slavery, — 
if that is anything new, I confess I don't know it. 
Has there ever been a time when anybody said that 
any other than the people of a Territory itself should 
form a constitution ? What is now in it that Judge 
Douglas should have fought several years of his life, 
and pledge himself to fight all the remaining years of 
his life for? Can Judge Douglas find anybody on 
earth that said that anybody else should form a 
constitution for a people? [A voice, "Yes."] Well, 
I should like you to name him ; I should like to know 
who he was. [Same voice, "John Calhoun."] 

Mr. Lincoln : No, sir, I never heard of even John 
Calhoun saying such a thing. He insisted on the 
same principle as Judge Douglas ; but his mode of 
applying it, in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my 
purpose to ask this crowd whenever a Republican 
said anything against it. They never said anything 
against it, but they have constantly spoken for it; 
and whoever will undertake to examine the plat- 
form, and the speeches of responsible men of the 
party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, 
will be unable to find one word from anybody in the 
Republican ranks opposed to that popular sover- 
eignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has 
invented. I suppose that Judge Douglas will claim, 



Abraham Lincoln 45 

in a little while, that he is the inventor of the idea 
that the people should govern themselves; that 
nobody ever thought of such a thing until he brought 
it forward. We do not remember that in that old 
Declaration of Independence it is said that "We 
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are 
created equal; that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; 
that to secure these rights, governments are in- 
stituted among men, deriving their just powers from 
the consent of the governed." There is the origin 
of popular sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in 
at this day and claim that he invented it? 

The Lecompton Constitution connects itself with 
this question, for it is in this matter of the Lecompton 
Constitution that our friend Judge Douglas claims 
such vast credit. I agree that in opposing the 
Lecompton Constitution, so far as I can perceive, he 
was right. I do not deny that at all; and, gentle- 
men, you will readily see why I could not deny it, 
even if I wanted to. But I do not wish to ; for all the 
Republicans in the nation opposed it, and they 
would have opposed it just as much without Judge 
Douglas's aid as with it. They had all taken ground 
against it long before he did. Why, the reason that 
he urges against that constitution I urged against 
him a year before. I have the printed speech in 
my hand. The argument that he makes, why that 
constitution should not be adopted, that the people 
were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, I 
pointed out in a speech a year ago, which I hold in 



46 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

my hand now, that no fair chance was to be given to 
the people. ["Read it, Read it."] I shall not waste 
your time by trying to read it. ["Read it. Read 
it."] Gentlemen, reading from speeches is a very 
tedious business, particularly for an old man that 
has to put on spectacles, and more so if the man be 
so tall that he has to bend over to the light. 

A little more, now, as to this matter of popular 
sovereignty and the Lecompton Constitution. The 
Lecompton Constitution, as the Judge tells us, was 
defeated. The defeat of it was a good thing or it 
was not. He thinks the defeat of it was a good 
thing, and so do I, and we agree in that. Who 
defeated it? 

A voice: Judge Douglas. 

Mr. Lincoln: Yes, he furnished himself, and if 
you suppose he controlled the other Democrats that 
went wnth him, he furnished three votes; while the 
Republicans furnished twenty. 

That is what he did to defeat it. In the House of 
Representatives he and his friends furnished some 
twenty votes, and the Republicans furnished ninety 
odd. Now, who was it that did the work? 

A voice: Douglas. 

Mr. Lincoln: Why, yes, Douglas did it! To be 
sure he did. 

Let us, however, put that proposition another way. 
The Republicans could not have done it without 
Judge Douglas. Could he have done it without 
them? Which could have come the nearest to 
doing it without the other? 

A voice : Who killed the bill ? 



Abraham Lincoln 47 

Another voice : Douglas. 

Mr. Lincoln : Ground was taken against it by the 
Republicans long before Douglas did it. The pro- 
portion of opposition to that measure is about five 
to one. 

A voice: Why don't they come out on it? 

Mr. Lincoln: You don't know what you are 
talking about, my friend. I am quite willing to 
answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an 
intelligent question. 

Now, who in all this country has ever found any 
of our friends of Judge Douglas's way of thinking, 
and who have acted upon this main question, that 
has ever thought of uttering a word in behalf of 
Judge Trumbull? 

A voice: We have. 

Mr. Lincoln : I defy you to show a printed resolu- 
tion passed in a Democratic meeting — I take it upon 
myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution 
of a Democratic meeting, large or small — in favor of 
Judge Trumbull, or any of the five to one Repub- 
licans who beat that bill. Everything must be for 
the Democrats! They did everything, and the five 
to the one that really did the thing they snub over, 
and they do not seem to remember that they have 
an existence upon the face of the earth. 

Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I 
leave this branch of the subject to take hold of 
another. I take up that part of Judge Douglas's 
speech in which he respectfully attended to me. 

Judge Douglas made "two points upon my recent 
speech at Springfield. He says they are to be the 



48 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

issues of this campaign. The first one of these points 
he bases upon the language in a speech which I 
delivered at Springfield, which I believe I can quote 
correctly from memory. I said there that "we are 
now far into the fifth year since a policy was insti- 
tuted for the avowed object, and with the confident 
promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation; 
under the operation of that policy, that agitation 
has not only not ceased, but has constantly aug- 
mented." "I believe it will not cease until a crisis 
shall have been reached and passed. 'A house 
divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this 
government cannot endure permanently half slave 
and half free." "I do not expect the Union to be 
dissolved," — I am quoting from my speech, — "I do 
not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will 
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing 
or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery 
will arrest the spread of it and place it where the 
public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the 
course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will 
push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in 
all the States, north as well as south." 

What is the paragraph ? In this paragraph, which 
I have quoted in your hearing, and to which I ask 
the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks he dis- 
covers great political heresy. I want your attention 
particularly to what he has inferred from it. He 
says I am in favor of making all the States of this 
Union uniform in all their internal regulations; 
that in all their domestic concerns I am in favor of 
making them entirely uniform. He draws this in- 



Abraham Lincoln 49 

ference from the language I have quoted to you. 
He says that I am in favor of making war by the 
North upon the South for the extinction of slavery; 
that I am also in favor of inviting (as he expresses it) 
the South to a war upon the North for the purpose of 
nationalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, 
if you will carefully read that passage over, that I did 
not say that I was in favor of anything in it. I 
only said what I expected would take place. I 
made a prediction only, — it may have been a foohsh 
one, perhaps. I did not even say that I desired that 
slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. 
I do say so now, however, so there need be no longer 
any difficulty about that. It may be written down 
in the great speech. 

Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this 
speech of mine was probably carefully prepared. I 
admit that it was. I am not master of language; I 
have not a fine education; I am not capable of 
entering into a disquisition upon dialectics, as I 
believe you call it ; but I do not believe the language 
I employed bears any such construction as Judge 
Douglas puts ujjon it. But I don't care about a 
quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, 
and I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I can 
explain it to them, what I really meant in the use 
of that paragraph. 

I am not, in the first place, unaware that this 
government has endured eighty-two years half slave 
and half free. I know that. I am tolerably well 
acquainted with the history of the country, and I 
know that it has endured eighty-two years half slave 



50 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

and half free. I believe — and that is what I meant 
to allude to there — I believe it has endured because 
during all that time, until the introduction of the 
Nebraska Bill, the pubhc mind did rest all the time 
in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate 
extinction. That was what gave us the rest that 
we had through that period of eighty-two years, — at 
least, so I believe. I have always hated slavery, I 
think, as much as any Abolitionist, — I have been an 
Old Line Whig, — I have always hated it; but I 
have always been quiet about it until this new era 
of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. I 
always believed that everybody was against it, and 
that it was in course of ultimate extinction. [Point- 
ing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by.] Browning 
thought so ; the great mass of the nation have rested 
in the belief that slavery was in course of ultimate 
extinction. They had reason so to believe. 

The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant 
history led the people to believe so; and that such 
was the belief of the framers of the Constitution itself, 
why did those old men, about the time of the adop- 
tion of the Constitution, decree that slavery should 
not go into the new Territory, where it had not 
already gone? Why declare that within twenty 
years the African slave trade, by which slaves are 
supplied, might be cut off by Congress? Why were 
all these acts? I might enumerate more of these 
acts; but enough. What were they but a clear 
indication that the framers of the Constitution in- 
tended and expected the ultimate extinction of that 
institution? And now, when I say, as I said in my 



Abraham Lincoln 51 

speech that Judge Douglas has quoted from, when 
I say that I think the opponents of slavery will resist 
the farther spread of it, and place it where the public 
mind shall rest with the belief that it is in course of 
ultimate extinction, I only mean to say that they 
will place it where the founders of this government 
originally placed it. 

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no 
inclination to take it back, that I believe there is no 
right, and ought to be no inclination, in the people 
of the free States to enter into the slave States and 
interfere with the question of slavery at all. I have 
said that always; Judge Douglas has heard me say 
it, if not quite a hundred times, at least as good as a 
hundred times; and when it is said that I am in 
favor of interfering with slavery where it exists, I 
know it is unwarranted by anything I have ever 
intended, and, as I believe, by anything I have ever 
said. If, by any means, I have ever used language 
which could fairly be so construed (as, however, I 
believe I never have), I now correct it. 

So much, then, for the inference that Judge 
Douglas draws, that I am in favor of setting the 
sections at war with one another. I know that I 
never meant any such thing, and I believe that no 
fair mind can infer any such thing from anything I 
have ever said. 

Now, in relation to his inference that I am in 
favor of a general consolidation of all the local in- 
stitutions of the various States. I will attend to 
that for a little while, and try to inquire, if I can, 
how on earth it could be that any man could draw 



52 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

such an inference from anything I said. I have 
said, very many times, in Judge Douglas's hearing, 
that no man believed more than I in the principle of 
self-government; that it lies at the bottom of all my 
ideas of just government, from beginning to end. 
I have denied that his use of that term applies prop- 
erly. But for the thing itself, I deny that any man 
has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion to the 
principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency 
in advocating it. I think that I have said it in your 
hearing, that I believe each individual is naturally 
entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the 
fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes 
with any other man's rights; that each community 
as a State has a right to do exactly as it pleases with 
all the concerns within that State that interfere with 
the right of no other State; and that the General 
Government, upon principle, has no right to interfere 
with anything other than that general class of things 
that does concern the whole. I have said that at all 
times. I have said, as illustrations, that I do not 
believe in the right of Illinois to interfere with the 
cranberry laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Vir- 
ginia, or the liquor laws of Maine. I have said these 
things over and over again, and I repeat them here 
as my sentiments. 

How is it, then, that Judge Douglas infers, because 
I hope to see slavery put where the public mind shall 
rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate 
extinction, that I am in favor of Illinois going over 
and interfering with the cranberry laws of Indiana ? 
What can authorize him to draw any such inference ? 



Abraham Lincoln 53 

I suppose there might be one thing that at least 
enabled him to draw such an inference that would not 
be true with me or many others : that is, because he 
looks upon all this matter of slavery as an exceed- 
irigly little thing, — this matter of keeping one sixth 
ol: the population of the whole nation in a state of 
oppression and tyranny unequalled in the world. 
He looks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing, 
— only equal to the question of the cranberry laws of 
Indiana ; as something having no moral question in it ; 
as something on a par with the question of whether 
a man shall pasture his land with cattle, or plant it 
with tobacco; so little and so small a thing that he 
concludes, if I could desire that anything should be 
done to bring about the ultimate extinction of that 
little thing, I must be in favor of bringing about an 
amalgamation of all the other little things in the 
Union. Now, it so happens — and there, I presume, is 
the foundation of this mistake — that the Judge thinks 
thus ; and it so happens that there is a vast portion 
of the American people that do not look upon that 
matter as being this very little thing. The^^ look upon 
it as a vast moral evil; they can prove it as such by 
the writings of those who gave us the blessings of 
liberty which we enjoy, and that they so looked upon 
it, and not as an evil merely confining itself to the 
States where it is situated ; and while we agree that, 
by the Constitution we assented to, in the States 
where it exists, we have no right to interfere with it, 
because it is in the Constitution ; and we are by both 
duty and inclination to stick by that Constitution, 
in all its letter and spirit, from beginning to end. 



54 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

So much, then, as to my disposition — my wish — 
to have all the State legislatures blotted out, and to 
have one consolidated government, and a uniformity 
of domestic regulations in all the States, by which 
I suppose it is meant, if we raise com here, we must 
make sugar-cane grow here too, and we must make 
those which grow North grow in the South. All this 
I suppose he understands I am in favor of doing. 
Now, so much for all this nonsense; for I must call 
it so. The Judge can have no issue with me on a 
question of establishing uniformity in the domestic 
regulations of the States. 

A little now on the other point, — the Dred Scott 
decision. Another of the issues he says that is to be 
made with me is upon his devotion to the Dred Scott 
decision, and my opposition to it. 

I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, 
my opposition to the Dred Scott decision; but I 
should be allowed to state the nature of that opposi- 
tion, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What 
is fairly implied by the term Judge Douglas has used, 
"resistance to the decision " ? I do not resist it. If 
I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, I would 
be interfering with property, and that terrible dif- 
ficulty that Judge Douglas speaks of, of interfering 
with property, would arise. But I am doing no such 
thing as that, but all that I am doing is refusing to 
obey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and 
a vote should come up on a question whether slavery 
should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of 
the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. 

That is what I should do. Judge Douglas said 



Abraham Lincoln 55 

last night that before the decision he might advance 
his opinion, and it might be contrary to the decision 
when it was made; but after it was made he would 
abide by it until it was reversed. Just so! We 
let this property abide by the decision, but we will 
try to reverse that decision. We will try to put it 
where Judge Douglas would not object, for he says 
he will obey it until it is reversed. Somebody has 
to reverse that decision, since it is made, and we 
mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. 

What are the uses of decisions of courts? They 
have two uses. As rules of property they have two 
uses. First, they decide upon the question before 
the court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott 
is a slave. Nobody resists that. Not only that, 
but they say to everybody else that persons stand- 
ing just as Dred Scott stands are as he is. That is, 
they say that when a question comes up upon 
another person, it will be so decided again, unless 
the court decides in another way, unless the court 
overrules its decision. Well, we mean to do what 
we can to have the court decide the other way. 
That is one thing we mean to try to do. 

The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around 
this decision is a degree of sacredness that has never 
been before thrown around any other decision. I 
have never heard of such a thing. Why, decisions 
apparently contrary to that decision, or that good 
lawyers thought were contrary to that decision, have 
been made by that very court before. It is the first 
of its kind; it is an astonisher in legal history. It 
is a new wonder of the world. It is based upon 



56 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

falsehood in the main as to the facts ; allegations of 
facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many 
instances, and no decision made on any question — • 
the first instance of a decision made under so many 
unfavorable circumstances — thus placed, has ever 
been held by the profession as law, and it has always 
needed confirmation before the lawyers regarded it 
as settled law. But Judge Douglas will have it that 
all hands must take this extraordinary decision, 
made under these extraordinary circumstances, and 
give their vote in Congress in accordance with it, 
yield to it, and obey it in every possible sense. 
Circumstances alter cases. Do not gentlemen here 
remember the case of that same Supreme Court 
some twenty-five or thirty years ago deciding that a 
National Bank was constitutional? I ask, if some- 
body does not remember that a National Bank was 
declared to be constitutional? Such is the truth, 
whether it be remembered or not. The Bank char- 
ter ran out, and a recharter was granted b}^ Con- 
gress. That recharter was laid before General 
Jackson. It was urged upon him, when he denied 
the constitutionality of the Bank, that the Supreme 
Court had decided that it was constitutional; and 
General Jackson then said that the Supreme Court 
had no right to lay down a rule to govern a co- 
ordinate branch of the government, the members of 
which had sworn to support the Constitution; that 
each member had sworn to support that Constitution 
as he understood it. I will venture here to say that 
I have heard Judge Douglas say that he approved of 
General Jackson for that act. What has now be- 



Abraham Lincoln 57 

come of all his tirade about "resistance of the 
Supreme Court ' ' ? 

My fellow-citizens, getting back a little, — for I 
pass from these points, — when Judge Douglas makes 
his threat of annihilation upon the "alliance," he is 
cautious to say that that warfare of his is to fall upon 
the leaders of the Republican party. Almost every 
word he utters, and every distinction he makes, has 
its significance. He means for the Republicans who 
do not count themselves as leaders, to be his friends; 
he makes no fuss over them ; it is the leaders that he 
is making war upon. He wants it understood that 
the mass of the Republican party are really his 
friends. It is only the leaders that are doing 
something that are intolerant, and that require 
extermination at his hands. As this is clearly and 
unquestionably the light in which he presents that 
matter, I want to ask your attention, addressing 
myself to the Republicans here, that I may ask you 
some questions as to where you, as the Republican 
party, would be placed if you sustained Judge 
Douglas in his present position by a re-election? I 
do not claim, gentlemen, to be unselfish; I do not 
pretend that I would not like to go to the United 
States Senate, — I make no such hypocritical pre- 
tence ; but I do say to you that in this mighty issue 
it is nothing to you — nothing to the mass of the peo- 
ple of the nation, — whether or not Judge Douglas or 
myself shall ever be heard of after this night ; it may 
be a trifle to either of us, but in connection with this 
mighty question, upon which hang the destinies of 
the nation, perhaps, it is absolutely nothing: but 



58 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

where will you be placed if you reindorse Judge 
Douglas? Don't you know how apt he is, how ex- 
ceedingly anxious he is at all times, to seize upon 
anything and everything to persuade you that some- 
thing he has done you did yourselves? Why, he 
tried to persuade you last night that our Illinois 
Legislature instructed him to introduce the Nebraska 
Bill. There was nobody in that Legislature ever 
thought of such a thing; and when he first intro- 
duced the bill, he never thought of it; but still he 
fights furiously for the proposition, and that he did 
it because there was a standing instruction to our 
Senators to be always introducing Nebraska bills. 
He tells you he is for the Cincinnati platform, he 
tells you he is for the Dred Scott decision. He tells 
you, not in his speech last night, but substantially 
in a former speech, that he cares not if slavery is 
voted up or down; he tells you the struggle on 
Lecompton is past; it may come up again or not, 
and if it does, he stands where he stood when, in spite 
of him and his opposition, you built up the Repub- 
lican party. If you indorse him, you tell him you 
do not care whether slavery be voted up or down, 
and he will close or try to close your mouths with 
his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the 
month, and the year. Is that what you mean? 
[Cries of "No," one voice "Yes."] Yes, I have no 
doubt you who have always been for him, if you 
mean that. No doubt of that, soberly I have said, 
and I repeat it. I think, in the position in which 
Judge Douglas stood in opposing the Lecompton 
Constitution, he was right; he does not know that 



Abraham Lincoln 59 

it will return, but if it does we may know where to 
find him, and if it does not, we may know where to 
look for him, and that is on the Cincinnati platform. 
Now, I could ask the RepubHcan party, after all the 
hard names that Judge Douglas has called them by 
all his repeated charges of their inclination to marry 
with and hug negroes; all his declarations of Black 
Republicanism, — by the way, we are improving, 
the black has got rubbed off, — ^but with all that, if 
he be indorsed by Republican votes, where do you 
stand? Plainly, you stand ready saddled, bridled, 
and harnessed, and waiting to be driven over to the 
slavery extension camp of the nation, — just ready to 
be driven over, tied together in a lot, to be driven 
over, every man with a rope around his neck, that 
halter being held by Judge Douglas. That is the 
question. If Republican men have been in earnest 
in what they have done, I think they had better not 
do it ; but I think that the Republican party is made 
up of those who, as far as they can peaceably, will 
oppose the extension of slavery, and who will hope 
for its ultimate extinction. If they believe it is 
wrong in grasping up the new lands of the continent 
and keeping them from the settlement of free white 
laborers, who want the land to bring up their families 
upon; if they are in earnest, although they may 
make a mistake, they will grow restless, and the 
time will come when they w^ill come back again and 
reorganize, if not by the same name, at least upon the 
same principles as their party now has. It is better, 
then, to save the work while it is begun. You have 
done the labor; maintain it, keep it. If men choose 



6o Lincoln and Dousrlas Debates 



&' 



to serve you, go with them ; but as you have made 
up your organization upon principle, stand by it; 
for, as surely as God reigns over you, and has in- 
spired your mind, and given you a sense of pro- 
priety, and continues to give you hope, so surely 
will you still cling to these ideas, and you will at last 
come back again after your wanderings, merely to 
do your work over again. 

We were often, — more than once, at least, — in the 
course of Judge Douglas's speech last night, re- 
minded that this government was made for white 
men; that he believed it was made for white men. 
Well, that is putting it into a shape in which no one 
wants to deny it; but the Judge then goes into his 
passion for drawing inferences that are not war- 
ranted. I protest, now and forever, against that 
counterfeit logic which presumes that because I did 
not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarily 
want her for a wife. My understanding is that I need 
not have her for either, but, as God made us sepa- 
rate, we can leave one another alone, and do one an- 
other much good thereby. There are white men 
enough to marry all the white w^omen, and enough 
black men to marry all the black women; and in 
God's name let them be so married. The Judge re- 
gales us with the terrible enormities that take place 
by the mixture of races ; that the inferior race bears 
the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let 
them get together in the Territories, they won't mix 
there. 

A voice: Three cheers for Lincoln. (The cheers 
were given with a hearty good-wilL) 



Abraham Lincoln 6i 

Mr. Lincoln: I should say at least that that is a 
self-evident truth. 

Now, it happens that we meet together once 
every year, sometimes about the 4th of July, for 
some reason or other. These 4th of July gatherings 
I suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, 
I will state what I suppose to be some of them. 

We are now a mighty nation; we are thirty or 
about thirty millions of people, and we own and 
inhabit about one fifteenth part of the dry land of 
the whole earth. We run our memory back over 
the pages of history for about eighty- two years, and 
we discover that we were then a very small people 
in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we 
are now, with a vastly less extent of country, with 
vastly less of everything we deem desirable among 
men; we look upon the change as exceedingly 
advantageous to us and to our posterity, and we 
fix upon something that happened away back, as 
in some way or other being connected with this rise 
of prosperity. We find a race of men living in that 
day whom we claim as our fathers and grandfathers ; 
they were iron men; thc}^ fought for the principle 
that they were contending for; and we understood 
that by what they then did it has followed that the 
degree of prosperity which we now enjoy has come 
to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind 
ourselves of all the good done in this process of time, 
of how it was done and who did it, and how we are 
historically connected with it; and we go from these 
meetings in better humor with ourselves, we feel 
more attached the one to the other, and more firmly 



62 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

bound to the country we inhabit. In every way we 
are better men in the age and race and country in 
which we live, for these celebrations. But after we 
have done all this we have not yet reached the 
whole. There is something else connected with it. 
We have — besides these, men descended by blood 
from our ancestors — among us perhaps half our 
people who are not descendants at all of these men ; 
they are men who have come from Europe, — Ger- 
man, Irish, French, and Scandinavian, — men that 
have come from Europe themselves, or whose an- 
cestors have come hither and settled here, finding 
themselves our equals in all things. If they look 
back through this history to trace their connection 
with those days by blood, they find they have none, 
they cannot carry themselves back into that glorious 
epoch and make themselves feel that they are part of 
us ; but when they look through that old Declaration 
of Independence, they find that those old inen say 
that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that 
all men are created equal ' ' ; and then they feel that 
that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences 
their relation to those men, that it is the father of all 
moral principle in them, and that they have a right 
to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, 
and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that 
Declaration; and so they are. That is the electric 
cord in that Declaration that links the hearts of 
patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will 
link those patriotic hearts as long as the love of free- 
dom exists in the minds of men throughout the 
world. 



Abraham Lincoln 63 

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with 
this idea of "don't care if slavery is voted up or 
voted down," for sustaining the Dred Scott decision, 
for holding that the Declaration of Independence did 
not mean anything at all, we have Judge Douglas 
giving his exposition of what the Declaration of 
Independence means, and we have him saying that 
the people of America are equal to the people of 
England. According to his construction, you Ger- 
mans are not connected with it. Now, I ask you 
in all soberness if all these things, if indulged in, if 
ratified, if confirmed and indorsed, if taught to our 
children, and repeated to them, do not tend to rub 
out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to 
transform this government into a government of 
some other form. Those arguments that are made, 
that the inferior race are to be treated with as much 
allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as 
much is to be done for them as their condition will 
allow, — what are these arguments? They are the 
arguments that kings have made for enslaving the 
people in all ages of the world. You will find that 
all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this 
class; they always bestrode the necks of the people 
not that they wanted to do it, but because the peo- 
ple were better off for being ridden. That is their 
argument, and this argument of the Judge is the 
same old serpent that says. You work, and I eat; 
you toil, and I will enjoy the fruits of it. Turn in 
whatever way you will, whether it come from the 
mouth of a king, an excuse for enslaving the people of 
his country, or from the mouth of men of one race 



64 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it 
is all the same old serpent; and I hold, if that course 
of argumentation that is made for the purpose of 
convincing the public mind that we should not care 
about this should be granted, it does not stop with 
the negro. I should like to know, if taking this old 
Declaration of Independence, which declares that all 
men are equal upon principle, and making excep- 
tions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it 
does not mean a negro, why not another say it does 
not mean some other man? If that Declaration is 
not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which 
we find it, and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do 
it? If it is not true, let us tear it out! [Cries of 
"No, no."] Let us stick to it, then; let us stand 
firmly by it, then. 

It may be argued that there are certain condi- 
tions that make necessities and impose them upon 
us; and to the extent that a necessity is imposed 
upon a man, he must submit to it. I think that 
was the condition in which we found ourselves when 
we established this government. We had slavery 
among us, we could not get our Constitution unless 
we permitted them to remain in slavery, we could 
not secure the good we did secure if we grasped for 
more; and having by necessity submitted to that 
much, it does not destroy the principle that is the 
charter of our liberties. Let that charter stand as 
our standard. 

My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand 
to quote Scripture. I will try it again, however. 
It is said in one of the admonitions of our Lord, "As 



Abraham Lincoln 65 

your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." 
The Saviour, I suppose, did not expect that any 
human creature could be perfect as the Father in 
heaven; but he said, "As your Father in heaven 
is perfect, be ye also perfect." He set that up as a 
standard; and he who did most towards reaching 
that standard attained the highest degree of moral 
perfection. So I say in relation to the principle that 
all men are created equal, let it be as nearly reached 
as we can. If we cannot give freedom to every 
creature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery 
upon any other creature. Let us then turn this 
government back into the channel in which the 
framers of the Constitution originally placed it. 
Let us stand firmly by each other. If we do not 
do so, we are turning in the contrary direction, that 
our friend Judge Douglas proposes — not intention- 
ally — as working in the traces tends to make this 
one universal slave nation. He is one that runs in 
that direction, and as such I resist him. 

My friends, I have detained you about as long as I 
desired to do, and I have only to say : Let us discard 
all this quibbling about this man and the other man ; 
this race and that race and the other race being 
inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an 
inferior position; discarding our standard that we 
have left us. Let us discard all these things, and 
unite as one people throughout this land, until we 
shall once more stand up declaring that all men are 
created equal. 

My friends, I could not, without launching off 
upon some new topic, which would detain you too 



66 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

long, continue to-night. I thank you for this most 
extensive audience that you have furnished me 
to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of 
liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shall 
no longer be a doubt that all men are created free 
and equal. 



SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, 

Delivered at Bloomington, III., July i6, 1858. (Mr. Lincoln 
was present.) 

Senator Douglas said: 

Mr. Chairman and Fellow-citizens of McLean 
County: To say that I am profoundly touched by 
the hearty welcome you have extended me, and by 
the kind and complimentary sentiments you have 
expressed toward me, is but a feeble expression of the 
feelings of my heart. 

I appear before you this evening for the purpose of 
vindicating the course which I have felt it my duty 
to pursue in the Senate of the United States upon 
the great public questions which have agitated the 
country since I last addressed you. I am aware 
that my senatorial course has been arraigned, not 
only by political foes, but by a few men pretending 
to belong to the Democratic party, and yet acting in 
alliance with the enemies of that party, for the pur- 
pose of electing Republicans to Congress in this 
State, in place of the present Democratic delegation. 
I desire your attention whilst I address you, and then 
I will ask your verdict whether I have not in all 
things acted in entire good faith, and honestly 
carried out the principles, the professions, and the 
avowals which I made before my constituents 
previous to my going to the Senate. 

During the last session of Congress the great ques- 

67 



68 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

tion of controversy has been the admission of Kansas 
into the Union under the Leconipton Constitution. I 
need not inform you that from the beginning to the 
end I took bold, determined, and unrelenting ground 
in opposition to that Lecompton Constitution. My 
reason for that course is contained in the fact that 
that instrument was not the act and deed of the 
people of Kansas, and did not embody their will. I 
hold it to be a fundamental principle in all free 
governments — a principle asserted in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, and underlying the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, as well as the Constitution 
of every State of the Union — that every people ought 
to have the right to form, adopt, and ratify the 
constitution under which they are to live. When I 
introduced the Nebraska Bill in the Senate of the 
United States, in 1854, I incorporated in it the pro- 
vision that it was the true intent and meaning of the 
bill not to legislate slavery into any Territory or 
State, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the 
people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate 
their own domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Constitution of the United States, 
In that bill the pledge was distinctly made that the 
people of Kansas should be left not only free, but 
perfectly free to form and regulate their own domestic 
institutions to suit themselves; and the question 
arose, when the Lecompton Constitution was sent 
into Congress, and the admission of Kansas not 
only asked, but attempted to be forced under it, 
whether or not that Constitution was the free act 
and deed of the people of Kansas. No man pre- 



Stephen A. Douglas 69 

tends that it embodied their will. Every man in 
America knows that it was rejected by the people of 
Kansas, by a majority of over ten thousand, before 
the attempt was made in Congress to force the 
Territory into the Union under that Constitution, 
I resisted, therefore, the Lecompton Constitution 
because it was a violation of the great principle of 
self-government, upon which all our institutions 
rest. I do not wish to mislead you, or to leave you 
in doubt as to the motives of my action. I did not 
oppose the Lecompton Constitution upon the ground 
of the slavery clause contained in it. I made my 
speech against that instrument before the vote was 
taken on the slavery clause. At the time I made it 
I did not know whether that clause would be voted 
in or out; whether it would be included in the Con- 
stitution, or excluded from it; and it made no 
difference with me what the result of the vote was, 
for the reason that I was contending for a principle, 
under which you have no more right to force a free 
State upon a people against their will than you have 
to force a slave State upon them without their con- 
sent. The error consisted in attempting to control 
the free action of the people of Kansas in any 
respect whatever. It is no argument with me to sa}' 
that such and such a clause of the Constitution was 
not palatable, that you did not like it; it is a matter 
of no consequence whether you in Illinois like any 
clause in the Kansas Constitution or not; it is not a 
question for you, but it is a question for the people 
of Kansas. They have the right to make a con- 
stitution in accordance with their own wishes, and 



yo Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

if you do not like it, you are not bound to go there 
and live under it. We in Illinois have made a 
constitution to suit ourselves, and we think we 
have a tolerably good one; but whether we have 
or not, it is nobody's business but our own. If the 
people of Kentucky do not like it, they need not 
come here to live under it. If the people of Indiana 
are not satisfied with it, what matters it to us? We, 
and we alone, have the right to a voice in its adoption 
or rejection. Reasoning thus, my friends, my efforts 
were directed to the vindication of the great principle 
involving the right of the people of each State and 
each Territory to form and regulate their own 
domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject 
only to the Constitution of our common country. I 
am rejoiced to be enabled to say to you that we 
fought that battle until we forced the advocates of 
the Lecompton instrument to abandon the attempt 
of inflicting it upon the people of Kansas without 
first giving them an opportunit}^ of rejecting it. 
When we compelled them to abandon that effort, 
they resorted to a scheme. They agreed to refer 
the Constitution back to the people of Kansas, thus 
conceding the correctness of the principle for which 
I had contended, and granting all I had desired, pro- 
vided the mode of that reference and the mode of 
submission to the people had been just, fair, and 
equal. I did not consider the mode of submission 
provided in what is known as the "English" bill a 
fair submission, and for this simple reason, among 
others: It provided, in effect, that if the people of 
Kansas would accept the Lecompton Constitution, 



Stephen A. Douglas 7' 

that they might come in with 35,000 inhabitants; 
but that if they rejected it, in order that they might 
form a constitution agreeable to their own feelings, 
and conformable to their own principles, that they 
should not be received into the Union until they had 
93,420 inhabitants. In other words, it said to the 
people, — If you will come into the Union as a slave- 
holding State, you shall be admitted with 35,000 in- 
habitants; but if you insist on being a free State, 
you shall not be admitted until 3^ou have 93,420. I 
was not willing to discriminate between free States 
and slave States in this Confederacy. I will not put 
a restriction upon a slave State that I would not put 
upon a free State, and I will not permit, if I can 
prevent it, a restriction being put upon a free State 
which is not applied with the same force to the slave- 
holding States. Equality among the States is a 
cardinal and fundamental principle in our Confed- 
eracy, and cannot be violated without overturning 
our system of government. Hence I demanded that 
the free States and the slaveholding States should be 
kept on an exact equality, one with the other, as the 
Constitution of the United States had placed them. 
If the people of Kansas want a slaveholding State, let 
them have it ; and if they want a free State they have 
a right to it; and it is not for the people of Illinois, or 
Missouri, or New York, or Kentucky, to complain, 
whatever the decision of the people of Kansas may 
be upon that point. 

But while I was not content with the mode of sub- 
mission contained in the English bill, and while I 
could not sanction it for the reason that, in my 



^2 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

opinion, it violated the great principle of equality 
among the different States, yet when it became the 
law of the land, and under it the question was re- 
ferred back to the people of Kansas for their decision, 
at an election to be held on the first Monday in 
August next, I bowed in deference, because what- 
ever decision the people shall make at that election 
must be final, and conclusive of the whole question. 
If the people of Kansas accept the proposition sub- 
mitted by Congress, from that moment Kansas will 
become a State of the Union, and there is no wa}^ of 
keeping her out if you should try. The act of ad- 
mission would become irrepealable ; Kansas would 
be a State, and there would be an end of the con- 
troversy. On the other hand, if at that election the 
people of Kansas shall reject the proposition, as is 
now generally thought will be the case, from that 
moment the Lecompton Constitution is dead, and 
again there is an end of the controversy. So you see 
that either way, on the 3d of August next, the Le- 
compton controversy ceases and terminates forever; 
and a similar question can never arise unless some 
man shall attempt to play the Lecompton game over 
again. But, my fellow-citizens, I am well con- 
vinced that that game will never be attempted again; 
it has been so solemnly and thoroughly rebuked 
during the last session of Congress that it will find 
but few advocates in the future. The President of 
the United States, in his annual message, expressly 
recommends that the example of the Minnesota 
case, wherein Congress required the Constitution to 
be submitted to the vote of the people for ratification 



Stephen A. Douglas 73 

or rejection, shall be followed in all future cases; and 
all we have to do is to sustain as one man that 
recommendation, and the Kansas controversy can 
never again arise. 

My friends, I do not desire you to understand me 
as claiming for myself any special merit for the 
course I have pursued on this question. I simply 
did my duty, — a duty enjoined by fidelity, by honor, 
by patriotism ; a duty which I could not have shrunk 
from, in my opinion, without dishonor and faith- 
lessness to my constituency. Besides, I only did 
what it was in the power of any one man to do. 
There were others, men of eminent ability, men of 
wide reputation, renowned all over America, who 
led the van, and are entitled to the greatest share of 
the credit. Foremost among them all, as he was 
head and shoulders above them all, was Kentucky's 
great and gallant statesman, John J. Crittenden. 
By his course upon this question he has shown him- 
self a worthy successor of the immortal Clay, and 
well may Kentucky be proud of him. I will not 
withhold, either, the meed of praise due the Re- 
publican party in Congress for the course which 
they pursued. In the language of the New York 
Tribune, they came to the Douglas platform, 
abandoning their own, believing that under the 
peculiar circumstances they would in that mode 
best subserve the interests of the country. My 
friends, when I am battling for a great principle, I 
want aid and support from whatever quarter I can 
get it, in order to carry out that principle, I never 
hesitate in my course when I find those who on all 



74 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

former occasions differed from me upon the principle 
finally coming to its support. Nor is it for me to 
inquire into the motives which animated the Repub- 
lican members of Congress in supporting the Critten- 
den-Montgomery bill. It is enough for me that in 
that case they came square up and indorsed the 
great principle of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, which 
declared that Kansas should be received into the 
Union, with slavery or without, as its Constitution 
should prescribe. I was the more rejoiced at the 
action of the Republicans on that occasion for 
another reason. I could not forget, you will not 
soon forget, how unanimous that party was, in 1854, 
in declaring that never should another slave State 
be admitted into this Union under any circumstances 
whatever: and yet we find that during this last 
winter they came up and voted, to a man, declaring 
that Kansas should come in as a State with slavery 
under the Lecompton Constitution, if her people 
desired it, and that if they did not, they might 
form a new constitution, with slavery or without, 
just as they pleased. I do not question the motive 
when men do a good act ; I give them credit for the 
act; and if they will stand by that principle in the 
future, and abandon their heresy of "no more slave 
States even if the people want them," I will then 
give them still more credit. I am afraid, though, 
that they will not stand by it m the future. If they 
do, I will freely forgive them all the abuse they 
heaped upon me in 1854 for having advocated and 
carried out that same principle in the Kansas- 
Nebraska Bill. 



Stephen A. Douglas 75 

Illinois stands proudly forward as a State which 
early took her position in favor of the principle of 
popular sovereignty as applied to the Territories of 
the United States. When the Compromise measures 
of 1850 passed, predicated upon that principle, you 
recollect the excitement which prevailed throughout 
the northern portion of this State. I vindicated 
those measures then, and defended myself for having 
voted for them, upon the ground that they embodied 
the principle that every people ought to have the 
privilege of forming and regulating their own in- 
stitutions to suit themselves; that each State had 
that right, and I saw no reason why it should not be 
extended to the Territories. When the people of 
Illinois had an opportunity of passing judgment 
upon those measures, they indorsed them by a vote 
of their representatives in the Legislature, — sixty- 
one in the affirmative, and only four in the negative, 
- — in which they asserted that the principle embodied 
in the measures was the birthright of freemen, the 
gift of Heaven, a principle vindicated by our revolu- 
tionary fathers, and that no limitation should ever 
be placed upon it, either in the organization of a 
territorial government or the admission of a State 
into the Union. That resolution still stands un- 
repealed on the journals of the Legislature of Illinois. 
In obedience to it, and in exact conformity with the 
principle, I brought in the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 
requiring that the people should be left perfectly free 
in the formation of their institutions and in the 
organization of their government. I now submit to 
you whether I have not in good faith redeemed that 



76 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

pledge, that the people of Kansas should be left 
perfectly free to form and regulate their institutions 
to suit themselves. And yet, while no man can 
arise in any crowd and deny that I have been faithful 
to my principles and redeemed my pledge, we find 
those who are struggling to crush and defeat me, 
for the very reason that I have been faithful in 
carrying out those measures. We find the Re- 
publican leaders forming an alliance with professed 
Lecompton men to defeat every Democratic nominee 
and elect Republicans in their places, and aiding 
and defending them in order to help them break 
down Anti-Lecompton men, who they acknow- 
ledge did right in their opposition to Lecompton. 
The only hope that Mr. Lincoln has of defeating me 
for Senator rests in the fact that I was faithful to my 
principles and that he may be able in consequence 
of that fact to form a coalition with Lecompton men 
who wish to defeat me for that fidelity. 

This is one element of strength upon which he 
relies to accomplish his object. He hopes he can 
secure the few men claiming to be friends of the 
Lecompton Constitution, and for that reason you 
will find he does not say a word against the Lecomp- 
ton Constitution or its supporters. He is as silent as 
the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. Lincoln 
courting Lecompton votes, in order that he may go 
to the Senate as the representative of Republican 
principles! You know that the alliance exists. I 
think you will find that it will ooze out before the 
contest is over. 

Every Republican paper takes ground with my 



Stephen A. Douglas ^^ 

Lecompton enemies, encouraging them, stimulating 
them in their opposition to me, and styUng my 
friends bolters from the Democratic party, and their 
Lecompton alHes the true Democratic party of the 
country. If they think that they can mislead and 
deceive the people of Illinois, or the Democracy of 
Illinois, by that sort of an unnatural and unholy alli- 
ance, I think they show very little sagacity, or give 
the people very little credit for intelligence. It must 
be a contest of principle. Either the radical Abolition 
principles of Mr. Lincoln must be maintained, or 
the strong, constitutional, national Democratic prin- 
ciples with which I am identified must be carried out. 
There can be but two great political parties in this 
country. The contest this year and in i860 must 
necessarily be between the Democracy and the Re- 
publicans, if we can judge from present indications. 
My whole life has been identified with the Demo- 
cratic party. I have devoted all of my energies to 
advocating its principles and sustaining its organ- 
ization. In this State the party was never better 
united or more harinonious than at this time. The 
State Convention which assembled on the 2d of 
April, and nominated Fondey and French, was 
regularly called by the State Central Committee, 
appointed by the previous State Convention for that 
purpose. The meetings in each county in the State 
for the appointment of delegates to the Convention 
were regularly called by the county committees, and 
the proceedings in every county in the State, as well 
as in the State Convention, were regular in all re- 
spects. No convention was ever more harmonious 



78 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

in its action, or showed a more tolerant and just 
spirit toward brother Democrats. The leaders of 
the party there assembled declared their unalterable 
attachment to the time - honored principles and 
organization of the Democratic party, and to the 
Cincinnati platform. They declared that that plat- 
form was the only authoritative exposition of 
Democratic principles, and that it must so stand until 
changed by another National Convention; that in 
the mean time they would make no new tests, and 
submit to none; that they would proscribe no 
Democrat nor permit the proscription of Democrats 
because of their opinion upon Lecomptonism, or 
upon any other issue which has arisen, but would 
recognize all men as Democrats who remained inside 
of the organization, preserved the usages of the party, 
and supported its nominees. These bolting Demo- 
crats who now claim to be the peculiar friends of 
the National Administration, and have formed an 
alliance with Mr. Lincoln and the Republicans for 
the purpose of defeating the Democratic party, have 
ceased to claim fellowship with the Democratic 
organization, have entirely separated themselves 
from it, and are endeavoring to build up a faction in 
the State, not with the hope or expectation of elect- 
ing any one man who professes to be a Democrat to 
office in any county in the State, but merely to 
secure the defeat of the Democratic nominees and 
the election of Republicans in their places. What 
excuse can any honest Democrat have for aban- 
doning the Democratic organization and joining with 
the Republicans to defeat our nominees, in view^ of 



Stephen A. Douglas 79 

the platform established by the State Convention? 
They cannot pretend that they were proscribed be- 
cause of their opinions upon Lecompton or any other 
question, for the Convention expressly declared that 
they recognized all as good Democrats who remained 
inside of the organization and abided by the nomina- 
tions. If the question is settled or is to be con- 
sidered as finally disposed of by the votes on the 3d 
of August, what possible excuse can any good Demo- 
crat make for keeping up a division for the purpose of 
prostrating his party, after that election is over and 
the controversy has terminated ? It is evident that 
all who shall keep up this warfare for the purpose of 
dividing and destroying the party have made up their 
minds to abandon the Democratic organization for- 
ever, and to join those for whose benefit they are now 
trying to distract our party, and elect Republicans 
in the place of the Democratic nominees. 

I submit the question to you whether I have been 
right or wrong in the course I have pursued in Con- 
gress. And I submit, also, whether I have not 
redeemed in good faith every pledge I have made to 
you. Then, my friends, the question recurs, whether 
I shall be sustained or rejected? If you are of 
opinion that Mr. Lincoln will advance the interests 
of Illinois better than I can; that he will sustain 
her honor and her dignity higher than it has been in 
my power to do; that your interests and the inter- 
ests of your children require his election instead of 
mine, it is your duty to give him your support. If, 
on the contrary, you think that my adherence to 
these great fundamental principles upon which our 



8o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

government is founded is the true mode of sustain- 
ing the peace and harmony of the country, and 
maintaining the perpetuity of the Repubhc, I then 
ask you to stand by me in the efforts I have made 
to that end. 

And this brings me to the consideration of the two 
points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself. 
The Republican Convention, when it assembled at 
Springfield, did me and the country the honor of 
indicating the man who was to be their standard- 
bearer, and the embodiment of their principles, in 
this State. I owe them my gratitude for thus 
making up a direct issue between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself I shall have no controversies of a personal 
character with Mr. Lincoln. I have known him well 
for a quarter of a century. I have known him, as you 
all know him, a kind-hearted, amiable gentleman, a 
right good fellow, a worthy citizen, of eminent ability 
as a lawyer, and, I have no doubt, sufficient ability 
to make a good Senator. The question, then, for 
you to decide is whether his principles are more in 
accordance with the genius of our free institutions, 
the peace and harmony of the Republic, than those 
which I advocate. He tells 3^ou, in his speech made 
at Springfield, before the Convention which gave 
him his unanimous nomination, that — 

"A house divided against itself cannot stand." 

"I believe this government cannot endure per- 
manently half slave and half free." 

" I do not expect the Union to be dissolved, I don't 
expect the house to fall ; but I do expect it will cease 
to be divided." 



Stephen A. Douglas 8i 

"It will become all one thing or all the other." 
That is the fundamental principle upon which he 
sets out in this campaign. Well, I do not suppose 
you will believe one word of it when you come to 
examine it carefully, and see its consequences. 
Although the Republic has existed from 1789 to 
this day divided into free States and slave States, 
yet we are told that in the future it cannot endure 
unless they shall become all free or all slave. For 
that reason, he says, as the gentleman in the crowd 
says, that they must be all free. He wishes to go 
to the Senate of the United States in order to carry 
out that line of public policy, which will compel all 
the States in the South to become free. How is he 
going to do it? Has Congress any power over the 
subject of slavery in Kentucky, or Virginia, or any 
other State of this Union ? How, then, is Mr. Lincoln 
going to carry out that principle which he says is 
essential to the existence of this Union, to wit, that 
slavery must be abolished in all the States of the 
Union, or must be established in them all? You 
convince the South that they must either establish 
slavery in Illinois, and in every other free State, or 
submit to its abolition in every Southern State, and 
you invite them to make a warfare upon the Northern 
States in order to establish slavery, for the sake of 
perpetuating it at home. Thus, Mr. Lincoln invites 
by his proposition a war of sections, a war between 
Illinois and Kentucky, a war between the free 
States and the slave States, a war between the 
North and the South, for the purpose of either 
exterminating slavery in every Southern State or 



82 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

planting it in every Northern State. He tells you 
that the safety of this Republic, that the existence 
of this Union, depends upon that warfare being 
carried on until one section or the other shall be 
entirely subdued. The States must all be free or 
slave, for a house divided against itself cannot stand. 
That is Mr. Lincoln's argument upon that question. 
My friends, is it possible to preserve peace between 
the North and the South if such a doctrine shall 
prevail in either section of the Union? Will you 
ever submit to a warfare waged by the Southern 
States to establish slavery in Illinois ? What man in 
Illinois would not lose the last drop of his heart's 
blood before he would submit to the institution 
of slavery being forced upon us by other States, 
against our will? And if that be true of us, what 
Southern man would not shed the last drop of his 
heart's blood to prevent Illinois, or any other 
Northern State, from interfering to abolish slavery 
in his State? Each of these States is sovereign 
under the Constitution; and if we wish to preserve 
our liberties, the reserved rights and sovereignty 
of each and every State must be maintained. I 
have said on a former occasion, and I here repeat, 
that it is neither desirable nor possible to establish 
uniformity in the local and domestic institutions 
of all the States of this Confederacy. And why? 
Because the Constitution of the United States rests 
upon the right of every State to decide all its local 
and domestic institutions for itself. It is not possi- 
ble, therefore, to make them conform to each other, 
unless we subvert the Constitution of the United 



Stephen A. Douglas 83 

States. No, sir, that cannot be done. God forbid 
that any man should ever make the attempt! Let 
that Constitution ever be trodden under foot and 
destroyed, and there will not be wisdom and patriot- 
ism enough left to make another that will work half 
so well. Our safety, our liberty, depends upon pre- 
serving the Constitution of the United States as our 
fathers made it, inviolate, at the same time maintain- 
ing the reserved rights and the sovereignty of each 
State over its local and domestic institutions, against 
Federal authority, or any outside interference. 

The difference between Mr. Lincoln and myself 
upon this point is, that he goes for a combination of 
the Northern States, or the organization of a sec- 
tional political party in the free States, to make 
war on the domestic institutions of the Southern 
States, and to prosecute that war until they shall 
all be subdued, and made to conform to such rules 
as the North shall dictate to them. I am aware that 
Mr. Lincoln, on Saturday night last, made a speech 
at Chicago for the purpose, as he said, of explaining 
his position on this question. I have read that 
speech with great care, and will do him the justice to 
say that it is marked by eminent ability, and great 
success in concealing what he did mean to say in his 
Springfield speech. His answer to this point, which 
I have been arguing, is, that he never did mean, and 
that I ought to know that he never intended to con- 
vey the idea, that he wished the ' ' people of the free 
States to enter into the Southern States, and inter- 
fere with slavery." Well, I never did suppose that 
he ever dreamed of entering into Kentucky to make 



84 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

war upon her institutions; nor will any Abolitionist 
ever enter into Kentucky to wage such war. Their 
mode of making war is not to enter into those States 
where slavery exists, and there interfere, and render 
themselves responsible for the consequences. Oh, 
no! They stand on this side of the Ohio River and 
shoot across. They stand in Bloomington, and 
shake their fists at the people of Lexington; they 
threaten South Carolina from Chicago. And they 
call that bravery! But they are very particular, as 
Mr. Lincoln says, not to enter into those States for 
the purpose of interfering with the institution of 
slavery there. I am not only opposed to entering 
into the Slave States, for the purpose of interfering 
with their institutions, but I am opposed to a sec- 
tional agitation to control the institutions of other 
States. I am opposed to organizing a sectional 
party, which appeals to Northern pride, and Northern 
passion and prejudice, against Southern institutions, 
thus stirring up ill-feeling and hot blood between 
brethren of the same Republic. I am opposed to 
that whole system of sectional agitation, which can 
produce nothing but strife, but discord, but hostility, 
and, finally, disunion. And yet Mr. Lincoln asks 
you to send him to the Senate of the United States, in 
order that he may carry out that great principle of 
his, that all the States must be slave, or all must be 
free. I repeat, how is he to carry it out when he 
gets to the Senate? Does he intend to introduce a 
bill to abolish slavery in Kentucky? Does he in- 
tend to introduce a bill to interfere with slavery in 
Virginia? How is he to accomplish what he pro- 



Stephen A. Douglas 85 

fesses must be done in order to save the Union ? Mr. 
Lincoln is a lawyer, sagacious and able enough to tell 
you how he proposes to do it. I ask Mr. Lincoln 
how it is that he proposes ultimately to bring about 
this uniformity in each and all the States of the 
Union. There is but one possible mode which I 
can see, and perhaps Mr. Lincoln intends to pursue 
it; that is, to introduce a proposition into the 
Senate to change the Constitution of the United 
States, in order that all the State legislatures may 
be abolished, State sovereignty blotted out, and the 
power conferred upon Congress to make local laws 
and establish the domestic institutions and police 
regulations uniformly throughout the United States. 
Are you prepared for such a change in the institu- 
tions of your country? Whenever you shall have 
blotted out the State sovereignties, abolished the 
State legislatures, and consolidated all the power in 
the Federal Government, you will have established 
a consolidated empire as destructive to the liberties 
of the people and the rights of the citizen as that 
of Austria, or Russia, or any other despotism that 
rests upon the necks of the people. How is it 
possible for Mr. Lincoln to carry out his cherished 
principle of abolishing slavery everywhere or estab- 
lishing it everywhere, except by the mode which I 
have pointed out, — by an amendment to the Consti- 
tution to the effect that I have suggested? There is 
no other possible mode. Mr. Lincoln intends re- 
sorting to that, or else he means nothing by the great 
principle upon which he desires to be elected. My 
friends, I trust that we will be able to get him to 



86 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

define what he does mean by this scriptural quota- 
tion that "A house divided against itself cannot 
stand"; that the government cannot endure per- 
manently half slave and half free; that it must be 
all one thing, or all the other. Who among you 
expects to live, or have his children live, until 
slavery shall be established in Illinois or abolished in 
South Carolina? Who expects to see that occur 
during the lifetime of ourselves or our children ? 

There is but one possible way in which slavery 
can be abolished, and that is by leaving a State, 
according to the principle of the Kansas-Nebraska 
Bill, perfectly free to form and regulate its institu- 
tions in its own way. That was the principle upon 
which this Republic was founded, and it is under the 
operation of that principle that we have been able to 
preserve the Union thus far. Under its operations, 
slavery disappeared from New Hampshire, from 
Rhode Island, from Connecticut, from New York, 
from New Jersey, from Pennsylvania, from six of 
the twelve original slaveholding States; and this 
gradual system of emancipation went on quietly, 
peacefully, and steadily, so long as we in the free 
States minded our own business and left our neigh- 
bors alone. But the moment the abolition societies 
were organized throughout the North, preaching a 
violent crusade against slavery in the Southern 
States, this combination necessarily caused a counter- 
combination in the South, and a sectional line was 
drawn which was a barrier to any further eman- 
cipation. Bear in mind that emancipation has not 
taken place in any one State since the Free-soil party 



Stephen A. Douglas 87 

was organized as a political party in this country. 
Emancipation went on gradually in State after State 
so long as the free States were content with manag- 
ing their own affairs and leaving the South perfectly 
free to do as they pleased; but the moment the 
North said, We are powerful enough to control you 
of the South, the moment the North proclaimed 
itself the determined master of the South, that 
moment the South combined to resist the attack, 
and thus sectional parties were formed, and gradual 
emancipation ceased in all the Northern slavehold- 
ing States. And yet Mr. Lincoln, in view of these 
historical facts, proposes to keep up this sectional 
agitation, band all the Northern States together in 
one political party, elect a President by Northern 
votes alone, and then, of course, make a cabinet 
composed of Northern men, and administer the 
government by Northern men only, denying all the 
Southern States of this Union any participation in 
the administration of affairs whatsoever. I submit 
to you, my fellow-citizens, whether such a line of 
policy is consistent with the peace and harmony 
of the country? Can the Union endure under such 
a system of policy? He has taken his position in 
favor of sectional agitation and sectional warfare. I 
have taken mine in favor of securing peace, harmony, 
and good-will among all the States, by permitting 
each to mind its own business, and discountenancing 
any attempt at interference on the part of one State 
with the domestic concerns of the others. 

Mr. Lincoln makes another issue with me, and he 
wishes to confine the contest to these two issues. I 



88 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

accept the other as readily as the one to which I 
have already referred. The other issue is a crusade 
against the Supreme Court of the United States, 
because of its decision in the Dred Scott case. My 
fellow-citizens, I have no issue to make with the 
Supreme Court. I have no crusade to preach against 
that august body. I have no warfare to make upon 
it. I receive the decision of the Judges of that Court, 
when pronounced, as the final adjudication upon 
all questions within their jurisdiction. It would be 
perfectly legitimate and proper for Mr. Lincoln, 
myself, or any other lawyer, to go before the Supreme 
Court and argue any question that might arise there, 
taking either side of it, and enforcing it with all our 
ability, zeal, and energy; but when the decision is 
pronounced, that decision becomes the law of the 
land, and he, and you, and myself, and every other 
good citizen, must bow to it, and yield obedience to 
it. Unless we respect and bow in deference to the 
final decisions of the highest judicial tribunal in our 
country, we are driven at once to anarchy, to 
violence, to mob law, and there is no security left 
for our property or our own civil rights. What 
protects your property but the law? and who ex- 
pounds the law but the judicial tribunals? and if an 
appeal is to be taken from the decisions of the 
Supreme Court of the United Staftes in all cases 
where a person does not like the adjudication, to 
whom is that appeal to be taken ? Are we to appeal 
from the Supreme Court to a county meeting like 
this? And shall w^e here reargue the question and 
reverse the decision? If so, how are we to enforce 



Stephen A. Douglas 89 

our decrees after we have pronounced them? Does 
Mr. Lincoln intend to appeal from the Supreme 
Court to a Republican caucus, or a town meeting? 
To whom is he going to appeal? ["To Lovejoy," 
and shouts of laughter.] Why, if I understand 
aright, Lincoln and Lovejoy are co-appellants in 
a joint suit, and inasmuch as they are so, he would 
not, certainly, appeal from the Supreme Court to his 
own partner to decide the case for him. 

Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is opposed to the 
decision of the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott 
case. Well, suppose he is; what is he going to do 
about it? I never got beat in a lawsuit in my life 
that I was not opposed to the decision ; and if I had 
it before the Circuit Court I took it up to the Supreme 
Court, where, if I got beat again, I thought it better 
to say no more about it, as I did not know of any 
lawful mode of reversing the decision of the highest 
tribunal on earth. To whom is Mr. Lincoln going 
to appeal? Why, he says he is going to appeal to 
Congress. Let us see how he will appeal to Congress. 
He tells us that on the 8th of March, 1820, Congress 
passed a law called the Missouri Compromise, pro- 
hibiting slavery fore\'cr in all the territor}'' west of the 
Mississippi and north of the Missouri line of thirty- 
six degrees and thirty minutes; that Dred Scott, a 
slave in Missouri, was taken by his master to Fort 
Snelling, in the present State of Minnesota, situated 
on the west bank of the Mississippi River, and 
consequently in the Territory where slavery was 
prohibited by the Act of 1820; and that when Dred 
Scott appealed for his freedom in consequence of 



90 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

having been taken into a free Territory, the Supreme 
Court of the United States decided that Dred Scott 
did not become free by being taken into that Terri- 
tory, but that, having been carried back to Missouri, 
he was yet a slave. Mr. Lincoln is going to appeal 
from that decision and reverse it. He does not 
intend to reverse it as to Dred Scott. Oh, no! But 
he will reverse it so that it shall not stand as a rule in 
the future. How will he do it? He says that if he 
is elected to the Senate he will introduce and pass a 
law just like the Missouri Compromise, prohibiting 
slavery again in all the Territories. Suppose he 
does re-enact the same law which the Court has pro- 
nounced unconstitutional, will that make it constitu- 
tional? If the Act of 1820 was unconstitutional, in 
consequence of Congress having no power to pass it, 
will Mr. Lincoln make it constitutional by passing it 
again? What clause of the Constittition of the 
United States provides for an appeal from the 
decision of the Supreme Court to Congress? If my 
reading of that instrument is correct, it is to the 
effect that that Constitution and all laws made in 
pursuance of it are of the supreme law of the land, 
anything in the constitution or laws of a State 
to the contrary notwithstanding. Hence, you will 
fmd that only such Acts of Congress are laws as 
are made in pursuance of the Constitution. When 
Congress has passed an act, and put it on the statute 
book as law, who is to decide whether that act is 
in conformity with the Constitution or not? The 
Constitution of the United States tells you. It has 
provided that the judicial power of the United States 



Stephen A. Douglas 91 

shall be vested in a Supreme Court, and such inferior 
courts as Congress may from time to time ordain and 
establish. Thus, by the Constitution, the Supreme 
Court is declared, in so many words, to be the tribunal, 
and the only tribunal, which is competent to adjudi- 
cate upon the constitutionality of an Act of Congress. 
He tells you that that Court has adjudicated the 
question, and decided that an Act of Congress pro- 
hibiting slavery in the Territory is unconstitutional 
and void ; and yet he says he is going to pass another 
like it. What for ? Will it be any more valid ? Will 
he be able to convince the Court that the second act 
is valid when the first is invalid and void? What 
good does it do to pass a second act? Why, it will 
have the effect to arraign the Supreme Court before 
the people, and to bring them into all the political 
discussions of the country. Will that do any good ? 
Will it inspire any more confidence in the judicial 
tribunals of the country? What good can it do to 
wage this war upon the Court, arraying it against 
Congress, and Congress against the Court? The 
Constitution of the United States has said that this 
government shall be divided into three separate and 
distinct branches — the executive, the legislative, 
and the judicial; and of course each one is supreme 
and independent of the other within the circle of its 
own powers. The functions of Congress are to 
enact the statutes, the province of the Court is to 
pronounce upon their validity, and the duty of the 
executive is to carry the decision into effect when 
rendered by the Court. And yet, notwithstanding 
the Constitution makes the decision of the Court 



92 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

final in regard to the validity of an Act of Congress, 
Mr. Lincoln is going to reverse that decision by 
passing another Act of Congress, 

When he has become convinced of the folly of the 
proposition, perhaps he will resort to the same 
subterfuge that I have found others of his party 
resort to, which is to agitate and agitate until he can 
change the Supreme Court and put other men in the 
places of the present incumbents. I wonder whether 
Mr. Lincoln is right sure that he can accomplish that 
reform. He certainly will not be able to get rid of 
the present Judges until they die, and from present 
appearances I think they have as good security of 
life as he has himself. I am afraid that my friend 
Lincoln would not accomplish this task during his 
own lifetime, and yet he wants to go to Congress to 
do all this in six years. Do you think that he can 
persuade nine Judg3S, or a majority of them, to die 
in that six years, just to accommodate him? They 
are appointed Judges for life, and according to the 
present organization, new ones cannot be appointed 
during that time; but he is going to agitate until 
they die, and then have the President appoint good 
Republicans in their places. He had better be quite 
sure that he gets a Republican President at the same 
time to appoint them. He wants to have a Re- 
publican President elected by Northern votes, not a 
Southern man participating, and elected for the pur- 
pose of placing none but RepubUcans on the bench ; 
and, consequently, if he succeeds in electing that 
President, and succeeds in persuading the present 
Judges to die, in order that their vacancies may be 



Stephen A. Douglas 93 

filled, that the President will then appoint their suc- 
cessors. And by what process will he appoint them ? 
He first looks for a man who has the legal qualifica- 
tions; perhaps he takes Mr. Lincoln, and says, "Mr, 
Lincoln, would you not like to go on the Supreme 
bench?" "Yes," replies Mr. Lincoln. "Well," re- 
turns the Republican President, "I cannot appoint 
you until you give me a pledge as to how you will 
decide in the event of a particular question coming 
before you." What would you think of Mr. Lincoln 
if he would consent to give that pledge? And ^^et 
he is going to prosecute a war until he gets the 
present Judges out, and then catechise each man and 
require a pledge before his appointment as to how 
he will decide each question that may arise upon 
points affecting the Republican party. 

Now, my friends, suppose this scheme was prac- 
tical, I ask you what confidence you would have 
in a court thus constituted, — a court composed of 
partisan judges, appointed on political grounds, 
selected with a view to the decision of questions in a 
particular way, and pledged in regard to a decision 
before the argument, and without reference to the 
peculiar state of the facts. Would such a court 
command the respect of the country? If the Re- 
publican party cannot trust Democratic judges, how 
can they expect us to trust Republican judges, 
when they have been selected in advance for the 
purpose of packing a decision in the event of a case 
arising ? My fellow-citizens, whenever partisan poli- 
tics shall be carried on to the bench; whenever the 
judges shall be arraigned upon the stump, and 



94 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

their judicial conduct reviewed in town meetings and 
caucuses; whenever the independence and integrity 
of the judiciary shall be tampered with to the extent 
of rendering them partial, blind, and suppliant tools, 
what security will you have for your rights and your 
liberties? I therefore take issue with Mr. Lincoln 
directly in regard to this warfare upon the Supreme 
Court of the United States. I accept the decision of 
that Court as it was pronounced. Whatever my 
individual opinions may be, I, as a good citizen, am 
bound by the laws of the land, as the Legislature 
makes them, as the Court expounds them, and as the 
executive officers administer them. I am bound 
by our Constitution as our fathers made it, and as it 
is our duty to support it. I am bound, as a good 
citizen, to sustain the constituted authorities, and 
to resist, discourage, and beat down, by all lawful 
and peaceful means, all attempts at exciting mobs, 
or violence, or any other revolutionary proceedings 
against the Constitution and the constituted author- 
ities of the country. 

Mr. Lincoln is alarmed for fear that, under the 
Dred Scott decision, slavery will go into all the 
Territories of the United States. All I have to say 
is that, with or without that decision, slavery will 
go just where the people w^ant it, and not one inch 
further. You have had experience upon that sub- 
ject in the case of Kansas. You have been told by 
the Republican party that, from 1854, when the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed, down to last winter, 
that slavery was sustained and supported in Kansas 
by the laws of what they called a "bogus" Legis- 



Stephen A. Douglas 95 

lature. And how many slaves were there in the 
Territory at the end of last winter? Not as many 
at the end of that period as there were on the day the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed. There was quite a 
number of slaves in Kansas, taken there under the 
Missouri Compromise, and in spite of it, before the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill passed ; and now it is asserted 
that there are not as many there as there were before 
the passage of the bill, notwithstanding that they 
had local laws sustaining and encouraging it, enacted, 
as the Republicans say, by a "bogus" Legislature, 
imposed upon Kansas by an invasion from Missouri. 
Why has not slavery^ obtained a foothold in Kansas 
under these circumstances? Simply because there 
was a majority of her people opposed to slavery, and 
every slaveholder knew that if he took his slaves 
there, the moment that majority got possession of 
the ballot-boxes, and a fair election was held, that 
moment slavery would be abolished, and he would 
lose them. For that reason, such owners as took 
their slaves there brought them back to Missouri, 
fearing that if they remained they would be eman- 
cipated. Thus you see that under the principle of 
popular sovereignty slavery has been kept out of 
Kansas, notwithstanding the fact that for the first 
three years they had a Legislature in that Territory 
favorable to it. I tell you, my friends, it is impos- 
sible under our institutions to force slavery on an 
unwilling people. If this principle of popular 
sovereignty asserted in the Nebraska Bill be fairly 
carried out, by letting the people decide the ques- 
tion for themselves, b}^ a fair vote, at a fair election, 



96 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

and with honest returns, slavery will never exist one 
day, or one hour, in any Territory against the un- 
friendly legislation of an unfriendly people. I care 
not how the Dred Scott decision may have settled 
the abstract question so far as the practical result 
is concerned; for, to use the language of an eminent 
Southern Senator on this very question: 

" I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, 
for it is of no particular consequence; slaveiy cannot 
exist a day or an hour, in any Territory or State, unless 
it has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, fur- 
nishing police regulation and remedies ; and an omission 
to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional 
prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, 
slavery could not exist any longer than a new-born 
infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a 
barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and die 
for the want of support." 

Hence, if the people of a Territory want slavery, 
they will encourage it by passing affirmatory 
laws, and the necessary police regulations, patrol 
laws, and slave code; if they do not want it, they 
will withhold that legislation, and by withholding it 
slavery is as dead as if it was prohibited by a consti- 
tutional prohibition, especially if, in addition, their 
legislation is unfriendly, as it would be if they were 
opposed to it. They could pass such local laws and 
police regulations as would drive slavery out in one 
day, or one hour, if they were opposed to it; and 
therefore, so far as the question of slavery in the 
Territories is concerned, so far as the principle of 



Stephen A. Douglas 97 

popular sovereignty is concerned, in its practical 
operation, it matters not how the Dred Scott case 
may be decided with reference to the Territories. 
My own opinion on that law point is well known. It 
is shown by my votes and speeches in Congress. 
But be it as it may, the question was an abstract 
question, inviting no practical results; and whether 
slavery shall exist or shall not exist in any State or 
Territory will depend upon whether the people are 
for or against it; and whichever way they shall 
decide it in any Territory or in any State will be 
entirely satisfactory to me. 

But I must now bestow a few words upon Mr. 
Lincoln's main objection to the Dred Scott decision. 
He is not going to submit to it. Not that he is going 
to make war upon it with force of arms, but he is 
going to appeal and reverse it in some way ; he cannot 
tell us how. I reckon not by a writ of error, because 
I do not know where he would prosecute that, ex- 
cept before an Abolition Society. And when he 
appeals, he does not exactly tell us to whom he will 
appeal — except it be the Republican party, and I 
have yet to learn that the Republican party, under 
the Constitution, has judicial powers — but he is 
going to appeal from it and reverse it, either by an 
Act of Congress, or by turning out the judges, or in 
some other way. And why? Because he says that 
that decision deprives the negro of the benefits of 
that clause of the Constitution of the United States 
which entitles the citizens of each State to all the 
privileges and immunities of citizens of the several 
States. Well, it is very true that the decision does 



98 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

have that effect. By deciding that a negro is not a 
citizen, of course it denies to him the rights and 
privileges awarded to citizens of the United States. 
It is this that Mr. Lincoln will not submit to. Why? 
For the palpable reason that he wishes to confer 
upon the negro all the rights, privileges, and im- 
munities of citizens of the several States. I will 
not quarrel with Mr. Lincoln for his views on that 
subject. I have no doubt he is conscientious in 
them. I have not the slightest idea but that he 
conscientiously believes that a negro ought to enjoy 
and exercise all the rights and privileges given to 
white men ; but I do not agree with him, and hence 
I cannot concur with him. I believe that this 
government of ours was founded on the white basis. 
I believe that it was established by white men, by 
men of European birth, or descended of European 
races, for the benefit of white men and their posterity 
in all time to come. I do not believe that it was the 
design or intention of the signers of the Declaration 
of Independence or the framers of the Constitution 
to include negroes, Indians, or other inferior races, 
with white men, as citizens. Our fathers had at 
that day seen the evil consequences of conferring civil 
and political rights upon the Indian and negro in the 
Spanish and French colonies on the American con- 
tinent and the adjacent islands. In Mexico, in 
Central America, in South America and in the West 
India Islands, where the Indian, the negro, and men 
of all colors and all races are put on an equality by 
law, the effect of political amalgamation can be seen. 
Ask any of those gallant young men in your own 



Stephen A. Douglas 99 

county who went to Mexico to fight the battles of 
their country, in what friend Lincoln considers an 
unjust and unholy war, and hear what they will tell 
you in regard to the amalgamation of races in that 
country. Amalgamation there, first political, then 
social, has led to demoralization and degradation, 
until it has reduced that people below the point of 
capacity for self-government. Our fathers knew 
what the effect of it would be, and from the time they 
planted foot on the American continent, not only 
those who landed at Jamestown, but at Plymouth 
Rock and all other points on the coast, they pur- 
sued the policy of confining civil and political rights 
to the white race, and excluding the negro in all 
cases. Still, Mr. Lincoln conscientiously believes 
that it is his duty to advocate negro citizenship. 
He wants to give the negro the privilege of citizen- 
ship. He quotes Scripture again, and says: "As 
your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect." 
And he applies that Scriptural quotation to all 
classes ; not that he expects us all to be as perfect as 
our Master, but as nearly perfect as possible. In 
other words, he is willing to give the negro an 
equality under the law, in order that he may ap- 
proach as near perfection, or an equality with the 
white man, as possible. To this same end he 
quotes the Declaration of Independence in these 
words: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, 
that all men were created equal, and endowed by 
their Creator with certain inaUenable rights, among 
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " ; 
and goes on to argue that the negro was included, or 



loo Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

intended to be included, in that Declaration, by 
the signers of the paper. He says that, by the 
Declaration of Independence, therefore, all kinds 
of men, negroes included, were created equal and 
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable 
rights, and, further, that the right of the negro to be 
on an equality with the white man is a divine right, 
conferred by the Almighty, and rendered inalienable 
according to the Declaration of Independence. 
Hence no human law or constitution can deprive 
the negro of that equality w4th the white man to 
which he is entitled by the divine law. ["Higher 
law."] Yes, higher law. Now, I do not question 
Mr. Lincoln's sincerity on this point. He believes 
that the negro, by the divine law, is created the 
equal of the white man, and that no human law can 
deprive him of that equality, thus secured; and he 
contends that the negro ought, therefore, to have 
all the rights and privileges of citizenship on an 
equality with the white man. In order to accom- 
plish this, the first thing that would have to be done 
in this State would be to blot out of our State Con- 
stitution that clause which prohibits negroes from 
coming into this State and making it an African 
colony, and permit them to come and spread over 
these charming prairies until in midday they shall 
look black as night. When our friend Lincoln gets 
all his colored brethren around him here, he will 
then raise them to perfection as fast as possible, and 
place them on an equality with the white man, first 
removing all legal restrictions, because they are our 
equals by divine law, and there should be no such 



Stephen A. Douglas loi 

restrictions. He wants them to vote. I am opposed 
to it. If they had a vote, I reckon they would all 
vote for him in preference to me, entertaining the 
views I do. But that matters not. The position 
he has taken on this question not only presents him 
as claiming for them the right to vote, but their right, 
under the divine law and the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, to be elected to office, to become members 
of the Legislature, to go to Congress, to become 
Governors, or United States Senators, or Judges of 
the Supreme Court; and I suppose that when they 
control that court they will probably reverse the 
Dred Scott decision. He is going to bring negroes 
here, and give them the right of citizenship, the 
right of voting, and the right of holding office and 
sitting on juries; and what else? Why, he would 
permit thc-n to marry, would he not? And if he 
gives them that right, I suppose he will let them 
marry whom they please, provided they marry their 
equals. If the divine law declares that the white 
man is the equal of the negro woman, that they are 
on a perfect equality, I suppose he admits the right 
of the negro woman to marry the white man. In 
other words, his doctrine that the negro, by divine 
law, is placed on a perfect equality with the white 
man, and that that equality is recognized by the 
Declaration of Independence, leads him necessarily 
to establish negro equality under the law; but 
whether even then they would be so in fact would 
depend upon the degree of virtue and intelligence 
they possessed, and certain other qualities that are 
matters of taste rather than of law. I do not 



I02 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

understand Mr. Lincoln as saying that he expects 
to make them our equals socially, or by intelligence, 
nor in fact as citizens, but that he wishes to make 
them our equals under the law, and then say to them, 
"As your Master in heaven is perfect, be ye also 
perfect." 

Well, I confess to you, my fellow-citizens, that I 
am utterly opposed to that system of Abolition 
philosophy. I do not believe that the signers of 
the Declaration of Independence had any reference 
to negroes when they used the expression that all 
men were created equal, or that they had any 
reference to the Chinese or Coolies, the Indians, the 
Japanese, or any other inferior race. They were 
speaking of the white race, the European race on 
this continent, and their descendants, and emigrants 
who should come here. They were speaking only of 
the white race, and never dreamed that their lan- 
guage would be construed to include the negro. And 
now for the evidence of that fact: At the time the 
Declaration of Independence was put forth, declar- 
ing the equality of all men, every one of the thirteen 
colonies was a slaveholding colony, and every man 
who signed that Declaration represented a slave- 
holding constituency. Did they intend, when they 
put their signatures to that instrument, to declare 
that their own slaves were on an equality with them ; 
that they were made their equals by divine law, 
and that any human law reducing them to an in- 
ferior position was void, as being in violation of 
divine law ? Was that the meaning of the signers of 
the Declaration of Independence ? Did Jefferson and 



Stephen A. Douglas 103 

Henry and Lee, — did any of the signers of that in- 
strument, or all of them, on the day they signed it, 
give their slaves freedom ? History records that they 
did not. Did they go further, and put the negro on 
an equality with the white man throughout the 
country? They did not. And yet if they had 
understood that Declaration as including the negro, 
which Mr. Lincoln holds they did, they would have 
been bound, as conscientious men, to have restored 
the negroes to that equality which he thinks the 
Almighty intended they should occupy with the 
white man. They did not do it. Slavery was 
abolished in only one State before the adoption of 
the Constitution in 1789, and then in others gradu- 
ally, down to the time this Abolition agitation 
began; and it has not been abolished in one since. 
The history of the country shows that neither the 
signers of the Declaration, nor the framers of the 
Constitution, ever supposed it possible that their 
language would be used in an attempt to make this 
nation a mixed nation of Indians, negroes, whites, 
and mongrels. I repeat that our whole history 
confirms the proposition that, from the earliest 
settlement of the colonies down to the Declaration 
of Independence and the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, our fathers proceeded on 
the white basis, making the white people the govern- 
ing race, but conceding to the Indian and negro, 
and all inferior races, all the rights and all the 
privileges they could enjoy consistent with the 
safety of the society in which they lived. That 
is my opinion now. I told you that humanity, 



I04 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

philanthropy, justice, and sound policy required that 
we should give the negro every right, every privi- 
lege, every immunity, consistent with the safety 
and welfare of the State. The question then 
naturally arises, What are those rights and privi- 
leges, and What is the nature and extent of them? 
My answer is, that that is a question which each 
State and each Territory rnust decide for itself. We 
have decided that question. We have said that in 
this State the negro shall not be a slave, but that he 
shall enjoy no political rights; that negro equality 
shall not exist. I am content with that position. 
My friend Lincoln is not. He thinks that our policy 
and our laws on that subject are contrary to the 
Declaration of Independence. He thinks that the 
Almighty made the negro his equal and his brother. 
For my part, I do not consider the negro any kin to 
me, nor to any other white man; but I would still 
carry my humanity and my philanthropy^ to the 
extent of giving him every privilege and every im- 
munity that he could enjoy, consistent with our own 
good. We in Illinois have the right to decide upon 
that question for ourselves, and we are bound to 
allow every other State to do the same. Maine 
allows the negro to vote on an equality with the 
white man. I do not quarrel with our friends in 
Maine for that. If they think it wise and proper 
in Maine to put the negro on an equality with the 
white man, and allow him to go to the polls and 
negative the vote of a white man, it is their business, 
and not mine. On the other hand, New York per- 
mits a negro to vote provided he owns $250 worth of 



Stephen A. Douglas 105 

property. New York thinks that a negro ought to 
be permitted to vote provided he is rich, but not 
otherwise. They allow the aristocratic negro to 
vote there. I never saw the wisdom, the propriety, 
or the justice of that decision on the part of New 
York, and yet it never occurred to me that I had a 
right to find fault with that State. It is her business ; 
she is a sovereign State, and has a right to do as she 
pleases; and if she will take care of her own negroes, 
making such regulations concerning them as suit her, 
and let us alone, I will mind my business, and not 
interfere with her. In Kentucky they will not give 
a negro any political or any civil rights. I shall not 
argue the question whether Kentucky in so doing 
has decided right or wrong, wisely or unwisely. It 
is a question for Kentucky to decide for herself. I 
believe that the Kentuckians have consciences as 
well as ourselves ; they have as keen a perception of 
their religious, moral, and social duties as we have; 
and I am willing that they shall decide this slavery 
question for themselves, and be accountable to their 
God for their action. It is not for me to arraign 
them for what they do. I will not judge them, lest 
I shall be judged. Let Kentucky mind her own 
business and take care of her negroes, and us attend 
to our own affairs and take care of our negroes, and 
we will be the best of friends; but if Kentucky 
attempts to interfere with us, or we with her, there 
will be strife, there will be discord, there will be 
relentless hatred, there will be everything but 
fraternal feeling and brotherly love. It is not 
necessary that you should enter Kentucky and 



io6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

interfere in that State, to use the language of Mr. 
Lincoln. It is just as offensive to interfere from 
this State, or send your missiles over there. I care 
not whether an enemy, if he is going to assault us, 
shall actually come into our State, or come along the 
line, and throw his bombshells over to explode in our 
midst. Suppose England should plant a battery on 
the Canadian side of the Niagara River, opposite 
Buffalo, and throw bombshells over, which would 
explode in Main Street, in that city, and destroy the 
buildings, and that, when we protested, she would 
say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, that she never 
dreamed of coming into the United States to interfere 
with us, and that she was just throwing her bombs 
over the line from her own side, which she had a 
right to do. Would that explanation satisfy us? 
So it is with Mr. Lincoln. He is not going into 
Kentucky, but he will plant his batteries on this side 
of the Ohio, where he is safe and secure for a retreat, 
and will throw his bombshells — his Abolition docu- 
ments — over the river, and will carry on a political 
warfare, and get up strife between the North and 
the South, until he elects a sectional President, 
reduces the South to the condition of dependent 
colonies, raises the negro to an equality, and forces 
the South to submit to the doctrine that a house 
divided against itself cannot stand; that the Utiion 
divided into half slave States and half free cannot 
endure; that they must all be slave or they must 
all be free; and that as we in the North are in the 
majority, we will not permit them to be all slave, 
and therefore they in the South must consent to the 



Stephen A. Douglas 107 

States all being free. Now, fellow-citizens, I sub- 
mit to you whether these doctrines are consistent 
with the peace and harmony of this Union? I sub- 
mit to you whether they are consistent with our 
duties as citizens of a common confederacy; whether 
they are consistent with the principles which ought 
to govern brethren of the same family? I recognize 
all the people of these States, North and South, East 
and West, old or new, Atlantic or Pacific, as our 
brethren, flesh of our flesh, and I will do no act unto 
them that I would not be willing they should do unto 
us. I would apply the same Christian rule to the 
States of this Union that we are taught to apply to 
individuals, — "Do unto others as you would have 
others do unto you"; and this would secure peace. 
Why should this slavery agitation be kept up? 
Does it benefit the white man, or the slave? Whom 
does it benefit, except the Republican politicians, 
who use it as their hobby to ride into office ? Why, 
I repeat, should it be continued? Why cannot we 
be content to administer this government as it was 
made, — a confederacy of sovereign and independent 
States? Let us recognize the sovereignty and in- 
dependence of each State, refrain from interfering 
with the domestic institutions and regulations of 
other States, permit the Territories and new States 
to decide their institutions for themselves, as we did 
when we were in their condition ; blot out these lines 
of North and South, and resort back to these lines of 
State boundaries which the Constitution has marked 
out and engraved upon the face of the country ; have 
no other dividing lines but these, and we will be one 



io8 Lincoln and Douelas Debates 



fc>' 



united, harmonious people, with fraternal feelings, 
and no discord or dissension. 

These are my views, and these are the principles 
to which I have devoted all my energies since 1850, 
when I acted side by side with the immortal Clay 
and the godlike Webster in that memorable strug- 
gle, in which Whigs and Democrats united upon a 
common platform of patriotism and the Constitution, 
throwing aside partisan feelings in order to restore 
peace and harmony to a distracted country. And 
when I stood beside the death-bed of Mr. Clay, and 
heard him refer, with feelings and emotions of the 
deepest solicitude, to the welfare of the country, and 
saw that he looked upon the principle embodied in 
the great Compromise measures of 1850, the principle 
of the Nebraska Bill, the doctrine of leaving each 
State and Temtory free to decide its institutions for 
itself, as the only means by which the peace of the 
country could be preserved and the Union perpetu- 
ated, — I pledged him, on that death-bed of his. that 
so long as I lived, my energies should be devoted to 
the vindication of that principle, and of his fame as 
connected with it. I gave the same pledge to the 
great expounder of the Constitution, he who has 
been called the ' ' godlike Webster. ' ' I looked up to 
Clay and to him as a son would to a father, and I call 
upon the people of Illinois, and the people of the 
whole Union, to bear testimony that never since 
the sod has been laid upon the graves of these 
eminent statesmen have I failed, on any occasion, to 
vindicate the principle with which the last great 
crowning acts of their lives were identified, or to 



Stephen A. Douglas 109 

vindicate their names whenever they have been 
assailed; and now my Hfe and energy are devoted 
to this great work as the means of preserving this 
Union. This Union can only be preserved by 
maintaining the fraternal feeling between the North 
and the South, the East and the West. If that good 
feeling can be preserved, the Union will be as per- 
petual as the fame of its great founders. It can be 
maintained by preserving the sovereignty of the 
States, the right of each State and each Territory to 
settle its domestic concerns for itself, and the duty 
of each to refrain from interfering with the other in 
any of its local or domestic institutions. Let that 
be done, and the Union will be perpetual; let that be 
done, and this Republic, which began with thirteen 
States, and which now numbers thirty-two, which, 
when it began, only extended from the Atlantic to the 
Mississippi, but now reaches to the Pacific, may yet 
expand, north and south, until it covers the whole 
continent, and becomes one vast ocean-bound con- 
federacy. Then, my friends, the path of dut}^ of honor, 
of patriotism, is plain. There are a few simple prin- 
ciples to be preserved. Bear in mind the dividing line 
between State rights and Federal authority; let us 
maintain the great principle of popular sovereignty, of 
State rights, and of the Federal Union as the Constitu- 
tion has made it, and this Republic will endure forever. 
I thank you kindly for the patience with which 
you have listened to me. I fear I have wearied you. 
I have a heavy day's work before me to-morrow. 
I have several speeches to make. My friends, in 
whose hands I am, are taxing me beyond human 



no Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

endurance; but I shall take the helm and control 
them hereafter. I am profoundly grateful to the 
people of McLean for the reception they have given 
me, and the kindness with which they have listened 
to me. I remember when I first came among you 
here, twenty-five years ago, that I was prosecuting 
attorney in this district, and that my earliest efforts 
were made here, when my deficiencies were too ap- 
parent, I am afraid, to be concealed from any one. 
I remember the courtesy and kindness with which I 
was uniformly treated by you all; and whenever I 
can recognize the face of one of your old citizens, it 
is like meeting an old and cherished friend. I come 
among you with a heart filled with gratitude for past 
favors. I have been with you but little for the past 
few years, on account of my official duties. I intend 
to visit you again before the campaign is over. I 
wish to speak to your whole people. I wish them to 
pass judgment upon the correctness of my course, 
and the soundness of the principles which I have 
proclaimed. If you do not approve my principles, 
I cannot ask your support. If you believe that the 
election of Mr. Lincoln would contribute more to 
preserve the harmony of the country, to perpetuate 
the Union, and more to the prosperity and the honor 
and glory of the State, then it is your duty to give 
him the preference. If, on the contrary, you believe 
that I have been faithful to my trust, and that by 
sustaining me you will give greater strength and 
efficiency to the principles which I have expounded, 
I shall then be grateful for your support. I renew 
my profound thanks for your attention. 



SPEECH OF SENATOR DOUGLAS, 

Delivered July 17, 1858, at Springfield, III. (Mr. Lincoln was 
not present.) 

Mr. Chairman and Fellow-citizens of Spring- 
field AND OLD Sangamon: My heart is filled with 
emotions at the allusions which have been so happily 
and so kindly made in the welcome just extended to 
me, — a welcome so numerous and so enthusiastic, 
bringing me to m}^ home among my old friends, that 
language cannot express my gratitude. I do feel at 
home whenever I return to old Sangamon and re- 
ceive those kind and friendly greetings which have 
never failed to meet me when I have come among 
you; but never before have I had such occasion to 
be grateful and to be proud of the manner of the 
reception as at the present. While I am willing, 
sir, to attribute a part of this demonstration to those 
kind and friendly personal relations to which you 
have referred, I cannot conceal from myself that 
the controlling and prevailing element in this great 
mass of human beings is devotion to that principle 
of self-government to which so many years of my 
life have been devoted; and rejoice more in con- 
sidering it an approval of my support of a cardinal 
principle than I would if I could appropriate it to 
myself as a personal compliment. 

You but speak rightly when you assert that during 
the last session of Congress there was an attempt to 



112 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

violate one of the fundamental principles upon which 
our free institutions rest. The attempt to force the 
Lecompton Constitution upon the people of Kansas 
against her will would have been, if successful, sub- 
versive of the great fundamental principles upon 
which all our institutions rest. If there is any one 
principle more sacred and more vital to the existence 
of a free government than all others, it is the right 
of the people to form and ratify the constitution 
under which they are to live. It is the corner-stone 
of the temple of liberty; it is the foundation upon 
which the whole structure rests; and whenever it 
can be successfully evaded, self-government has 
received a vital stab. I deemed it my duty, as a 
citizen and as a representative of the State of 
Illinois, to resist, with all my energies and with 
whatever of ability I could command, the consum- 
mation of that effort to force a constitution upon an 
unwilling people. 

I am aware that other questions have been con- 
nected, or attempted to be connected, with that 
great struggle; but they were mere collateral ques- 
tions, not affecting the main point. My opposition 
to the Lecompton Constitution rested solely upon the 
fact that it was not the act and deed of that people, 
and that it did not embody their will, I did not 
object to it upon the ground of the slavery clause 
contained in it. I should have resisted it with the 
same energy and determination even if it had been a 
free State instead of a slaveholding State; and as 
an evidence of this fact I wish you to bear in mind 
that my speech against that Lecompton Act was 



Stephen A. Douglas 113 

made on the 9th day of December, nearly two weeks 
before the vote was taken on the acceptance or re- 
jection of the slavery clause. I did not then know, 
I could not have known, whether the slavery clause 
would be accepted or rejected; the general impres- 
sion was that it would be rejected, and in my speech 
I assumed that impression to be true, that probably 
it would be voted down; and then I said to the 
United States Senate, as I now proclaim to you, my 
constituents, that you have no more right to force a 
free State upon an unwilling people than you have 
to force a slave State upon them against their will. 
You have no right to force either a good or a bad 
thing upon a people who do not choose to receive it. 
And then, again, the highest privilege of our people 
is to determine for themselves what kind of institu- 
tions are good and what kind of institutions are bad ; 
and it may be true that the same people, situated in 
a different latitude and different climate, and with 
different productions and different interests, might 
decide the same question one way in the North and 
another way in the South, in order to adapt their 
institutions to the wants and wishes of the people to 
be affected by them. 

You all are familiar with the Lecompton struggle, 
and I will occupy no more time upon the subject, ex- 
cept to remark that when we drove the enemies of 
the principle of popular sovereignty from the effort to 
force the Lecompton Constitution upon the people of 
Kansas, and when we compelled them to abandon 
the attempt and to refer that Constitution to that 
people for acceptance or rejection, we obtained a 



114 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

concession of the principle for which I had contended 
throughout the struggle. When I saw that the 
principle was conceded, and that the Constitution 
was not to be forced upon Kansas against the wishes 
of the people, I felt anxious to give the proposition 
my support; but when I examined it, I found that 
the mode of reference to the people and the form of 
submission, upon which the vote was taken, was 
so objectionable as to make it unfair and unjust. 

Sir, it is an axiom with me that in every free 
government an unfair election is no election at all. 
Every election should be free, should be fair, with 
the same privileges and the same inducements for a 
negative as for an affirmative vote. The objection 
to what is called the "English" proposition, by 
which the Lecompton Constitution was referred 
back to the people of Kansas, was this: that if the 
people chose to accept the Lecompton Constitution 
they could come in with only 35,000 inhabitants; 
while if they determined to reject it, in order to form 
another more in accordance with their wishes and 
sentiments, they were compelled to stay out until 
they should have 93,420 inhabitants. In other 
words, it was making a distinction and discrimina- 
tion between free States and slave States under the 
Federal Constitution. I deny the justice, I deny 
the right, of any distinction or discrimination be- 
tween the States north and south, free or slave. 
Equality among the States is a fundamental principle 
of this government. Hence, while I will never con- 
sent to the passage of a law that a slave State may 
come in with 35,000, while a free State shall not come 



Stephen A. Douglas 115 

in unless it have 93,000, on the other hand, I shall 
not consent to admit a free State with a population 
of 35,000, and require 93,000 in a slaveholding 
State. 

My principle is to recognize each State of the 
Union as independent, sovereign, and equal in its 
sovereignty. I will apply that principle, not only 
to the original thirteen States, but to the States 
which have since been brought into the Union, and 
also to every State that shall hereafter be received, 
"as long as water shall run, and grass grow." For 
these reasons I felt compelled, by a sense of duty, 
by a conviction of principle, to record my vote 
against what is called the English bill; but 3^et the 
bill became a law, and under that law an election has 
been ordered to be held on the first Monday in 
August, for the purpose of determining the question 
of the acceptance or rejection of the proposition 
submitted by Congress. I have no hesitation in 
saying to you, as the chairman of your committee 
has justly said in his address, that whatever the 
decision of the people of Kansas may be at that 
election, it must be final and conclusive of the whole 
subject; for if at that election a majority of the peo- 
ple of Kansas shall vote for the acceptance of the 
Congressional proposition, Kansas from that moment 
becomes a State of the Union, the law admitting her 
becomes irrepealable, and thus the controversy 
terminates forever; if, on the other hand, the peo- 
ple of Kansas shall vote down that proposition, as it 
is now generally admitted they will, by a large 
majority, then from that instant the Lecompton 



ii6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Constitution is dead, — dead beyond the power of 
resurrection; and thus the controversy terminates. 
And when the monster shall die, I shall be willing, 
and trust that all of you will be willing, to acquiesce 
in the death of the Lecompton Constitution. The 
controversy may now be considered as terminated, 
for in three weeks from now it will be finally settled, 
and all the ill-feeling, all the embittered feeling 
which grew out of it shall cease, unless an attempt 
should be made in the future to repeat the same 
outrage upon popular rights. I need not tell you 
that my past course is a sufficient guaranty that if 
the occasion shall ever arise again while I occupy a 
seat in the United States Senate, you will find me 
carrying out the same principle that I have this win- 
ter with all the energy and all the power I may be 
able to command. I have the gratification of saying 
to you that I do not believe that that controversy 
will ever arise again: firstly, because the fate of 
Lecompton is a warning to the people of every 
Territory and of every State to be cautious how the 
example is repeated; and, secondly, because the 
President of the United States, in his annual mes- 
sage, has said that he trusts the example in the 
Minnesota case, wherein Congress passed a law, 
called an Enabling Act, reqviiring the Constitution 
to be submitted to the people for acceptance or 
rejection, will be followed in all future cases. ["That 
was right."] I agree with you that it was right. 
I said so on the day after the message was delivered 
in my speech in the Senate on the Lecompton Con- 
stitution, and I have frequently in the debate 



Stephen A. Douglas 117 

tendered to the President and his friends, tendered 
to the Lecomptonites, my voluntary pledge, that 
if he will stand by that recommendation, and they 
will stand by it, that they will find-me working hand 
in hand with them in the effort to carry it out. All 
we have to do, therefore, is to adhere firmly in 
future, as we have done in the past, to the principle 
contained in the recommendation of the President in 
his annual message, that the example in the Min- 
nesota case shall be carried out in all future cases of 
the admission of Territories into the Union as States. 
Let that be done, and the principle of popular sover- 
eignty will be maintained in all of its vigor and all 
of its integrity. I rejoice to know that Illinois stands 
prominently and proudly forward among the States 
which first took their position firmly and immovably 
upon this principle of popular sovereignty, applied 
to the Territories as well as the States. You all 
recollect when, in 1850, the peace of the country was 
disturbed in consequence of the agitation of the 
slavery question, and the effort to force the Wilmot 
Proviso upon all the Territories, that it required all 
the talent and all the energy, all the wisdom, all the 
patriotism, of a Clay and a Webster, united with 
other great party leaders, to devise a system of 
measures by which peace and harmony could be 
restored to our distracted country. Those com- 
promise measures eventually passed, and were 
recorded on the statute book, not only as the settle- 
ment of the then existing difficulties, but as furnish- 
ing a rule of action which should prevent in all future 
time the recurrence of like evils, if they were firmly 



ii8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

and fairly carried out. Those compromise measures 
rested, as I said in my speech at Chicago on my 
return home that year, upon the principle that every 
people ought to have the right to form and regulate 
their own domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Constitution. The}" were founded 
upon the principle that while every State possessed 
that right under the Constitution, that the same 
right ought to be extended to and exercised by the 
people of the Territories. When the Illinois Legisla- 
ture assembled, a few months after the adoption of 
these measures, the first thing the members did was 
to review their action upon this slavery agitation, 
and to correct the errors into which their predecessors 
had fallen. You remember that their first act was 
to repeal the Wilmot Proviso instructions to our 
United States Senators, which had been previously 
passed, and in lieu of them to record another resolu- 
tion upon the journal, with which you must all be 
familiar, — a resolution brought forward by Mr. 
Ninian Edwards, and adopted by the House of 
Representatives by a vote of 6i in the affirmative to 
4 in the negative. That resolution I can quote to 
you in almost its precise language. It declared that 
the great principle of self-government was the birth- 
right of freemen, was the gift of Heaven, was achieved 
by the blood of our revolutionary fathers, and must 
be continued and carried out in the organization of all 
the Territories and the admission of all new States. 
That became the Illinois platform by the united 
voices of the Democratic party and of the Whig 
party in 1851 ; all the Whigs and all the Democrats 



Stephen A. Douglas 119 

in the Legislature uniting in an affirmative vote upon 
it, and there being only four votes in the negative, — 
of Abolitionists, of course. That resolution stands 
upon the journal of your Legislature to this day and 
hour unrepealed, as a standing, living, perpetual 
instruction to the Senators from Illinois in all time to 
come to carry out that principle of self-government, 
and allow no limitation upon it in the organization of 
any Territories or the admission of any new States. 
In 1854, when it became my duty as the chairman 
of the committee on Territories to bring forward a bill 
for the organization of Kansas and Nebraska, I in- 
corporated that principle in it, and Congress passed 
it, thus carrying the principle into practical effect. 
I will not recur to the scenes which took place all 
over the country in 1854, when that Nebraska Bill 
passed. I could then travel from Boston to Chicago 
by the light of my own efhgies, in consequence of 
having stood up for it. I leave it to you to say how 
I met that storm, and whether I quailed under it; 
whether I did not "face the music," justify the 
principle, and pledge my life to carry it out. 

A friend here reminds me, too, that when making 
speeches then, justifying the Nebraska Bill and the 
great principle of self-government, that I predicted 
that in less than five years you would have to get out 
a search-warrant to find an anti-Nebraska man. 
Well, I believe I did make that prediction. I did not 
claim the power of a prophet, but it occurred to me 
that among a free people, and an honest people, and 
an intelligent people, that five years was long enough 
for them to come to an understanding that the great 



I20 Lincoln and Douo^las Debates 



t,' 



principle of self-government was right, not only in 
the States, but in the Territories. I rejoiced this 
year to see my prediction, in that respect, carried out 
and fulfilled by the unanimous vote, in one form or 
another, of both Houses of Congress. If you will 
remember that pending this Lecompton controversy 
that gallant old Roman, Kentucky's favorite son, 
the worthy successor of the immortal Clay, — I 
allude, as you know, to the gallant John J. Crittenden 
— ^brought forward a bill, now known as the Critten- 
den-Montgomery bill, in which it was proposed that 
the Lecompton Constitution should be referred 
back to the people of Kansas, to be decided for or 
against it, at a fair election, and if a majority were 
in favor of it, that Kansas should come into the 
Union as a slaveholding State, but that if a majority 
were against it, that they should make a new con- 
stitution, and come in with slavery or without it, as 
they thought proper. ["That was right."] Yes, 
my dear sir, it was not only right, but it was carrying 
out the principle of the Nebraska Bill in its letter 
and in its spirit. Of course I voted for it, and so did 
every Republican Senator and Representative in 
Congress. I have found some Democrats so per- 
fectly straight that they blame me for voting for the 
principle of the Nebraska Bill because the Repub- 
licans voted the ^amc way. [Great laughter. "What 
did they say?"] 

What did they say ? Why, many of them said that 
Douglas voted with the Republicans. Yes, not only 
that, but with the black Republicans. Well, there 
are different modes of stating that proposition. 



Stephen A. Douglas 121 

The New York Tribune says that Douglas did not 
vote with the Republicans, but that on that question 
the Republicans went over to Douglas and voted 
with him. 

My friends, I have never yet abandoned a principle 
because of the support I found men yielding to it, 
and I shall never abandon my Democratic principles 
merely because Republicans come to them. For 
what do we travel over the country and make 
speeches in every political canvass, if it is not to 
enlighten the minds of these Republicans, to re- 
move the scales from their eyes, and to impart to 
them the light of Democratic vision, so that they 
may be able to carry out the Constitution of our 
country as our fathers made it? And if by preach- 
ing our principles to the people we succeed in con- 
vincing the Republicans of the errors of their ways, 
and bring them over to us, are we bound to turn 
traitors to our principles merel}^ because they give 
them their support? All I have to say is that I 
hope the Republican party will stand firm, in the 
futiu'e, by the vote they gave on the Crittenden- 
Montgomery bill. I hope we will find, in the resolu- 
tions of their county and Congressional conventions, 
no declarations of "no more Slave States to be ad- 
mitted into this Union," but in lieu of that declara- 
tion that we will find the principle that the people of 
every State and every Territory shall come into the 
Union with slavery or without it, just as they please, 
without any interference on the part of Congress. 

My friends, whilst I was at Washington, engaged in 
this great battle for sound constitutional principles, 



122 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

I find from the newspapers that the Republican 
party of this State assembled in this capital in State 
Convention, and not only nominated, as it was wise 
and proper for them to do, a man for my successor 
in the Senate, but laid down a platform, and their 
nominee made a speech, carefully written and pre- 
pared, and well delivered, which that Convention 
accepted as containing the Republican creed. I 
have no comment to make on that part of Mr. 
Lincoln's speech in which he represents me as form- 
ing a conspiracy with the Supreme Court, and with 
the late President of the United States and the 
present chief magistrate, having for my object the 
passage of the Nebraska Bill, the Dred Scott decision, 
and the extension of slavery, — a scheme of political 
tricksters, composed of Chief Justice Taney and his 
eight associates, two Presidents of the United States, 
and one Senator of Illinois. If Mr. Lincoln deems 
me a conspirator of that kind, all I have to say is that 
I do not think so badly of the President of the United 
States, and the Supreme Court of the United States, 
the highest judicial tribunal on earth, as to believe 
that they were capable in their action and decision of 
entering into political intrigues for partisan pur- 
poses. I therefore shall only notice those parts of 
Mr. Lincoln's speech in which he lays down his plat- 
form of principles, and tells you what he intends to 
do if he is elected to the Senate of the United States. 

[An old gentleman here rose on the platform and 
said: "Be particular now. Judge, be particular."] 

Mr. Douglas: My venerable friend here says that 
he will be gratified if I will be particular ; and in order 



Stephen A. Douglas 123 

that I may be so, I will read the language of Mr. 
Lincoln as reported by himself and published to the 
country. Mr. Lincoln lays down his main proposi- 
tion in these words: 

'"A house divided against itself cannot stand.' I be- 
lieve this Union cannot endure permanently half free and 
half slave. I do not expect the Union will be dissolved, 
I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect it to 
cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all 
the other." 

Mr. Lincoln does not think this Union can con- 
tinue to exist composed of half slave and half free 
States ; they must all be free, or all slave. I do not 
doubt that this is Mr. Lincoln's conscientious con- 
viction. I do not doubt that he thinks it is the 
highest duty of every patriotic citizen to preserve 
this glorious Union, and to adopt these measures as 
necessary to its preservation. He tells you that the 
only mode to preserve the Union is to make all the 
States free, or all slave. It must be the one, or it 
must be the other. Now, that being essential, in 
his estimation, to the preservation of this glorious / 
Union, how is he going to accomplish it? He says 
that he wants to go to the Senate in order to carry 
out this favorite patriotic policy of his, of making 
all the States free, so that the house shall no longer 
be divided against itself. When he gets to the 
Senate, by what means is he going to accomplish 
it? By an Act of Congress? Will he contend that 
Congress has any power under the Constitution 
to abolish slavery in any State of this Union, or to 



124 Lincoln and Douo^las Debates 



interfere with it directly or indirectly ? Of course he 
will not contend that. Then what is to be his mode 
of carrying out his principle, by which slavery shall 
be abolished in all of the States? Mr. Lincoln cer- 
tainly does not speak at random. He is a lawyer, — 
an eminent lawyer, — and his profession is to know the 
remedy for every wrong. What is his remedy for this 
imaginary wrong which he supposes to exist? The 
Constitution of the United States provides that it 
may be amended by Congress passing an amend- 
ment by a two- thirds majority of each house, which 
shall be ratified by three fourths of the States; and 
the inference is that Mr. Lincoln intends to carry 
this slavery agitation into Congress with the view of 
amending the Constitution so that slavery can be 
abolished in all the States of the Union. In other 
words, he is not going to allow one portion of the 
Union to be slave and another portion to be free; 
he is not going to permit the house to be divided 
against itself. He is going to remedy it by lawful 
and constitutional means. What are to be these 
means ? How can he abolish slavery in those States 
where it exists? There is but one mode by which a 
political organization, composed of men in the free 
States, can abolish slavery in the slaveholding 
States, and that would be to abolish the State 
legislatures, blot out of existence the State sover- 
eignties, invest Congress with full and plenary 
power over all the local and domestic and police 
regulations of the different States of this Union. 
Then there would be uniformity in the local concerns 
and domestic institutions of the different States; 



Stephen A. Douglas 125 

then the house would be no longer divided against 
itself; then the States would all be free, or they 
would all be slave ; then you would have uniformity 
prevailing throughout this whole land in the local 
and domestic institutions: but it would be a uni- 
formity, not of liberty, but a uniformity of despotism 
"that would triumph. I submit to you, my fellow- 
citizens, whether this is not the logical consequence 
of Mr. Lincoln's proposition? I have called on Mr. 
Lincoln to explain what he did mean, if he did not 
mean this, and he has made a speech at Chicago in 
which he attempts to explain. And how does he 
explain? I will give him the benefit of his own 
language, precisely as it was reported in the Repub- 
lican papers of that city, after undergoing his 
revision : 

" I have said a hundred times, and have now no inclina- 
tion to take it back, that I believe there is no right and 
ought to be no inclination in the people of the free States 
to enter into the slave States and interfere with the ques- 
tion of slavery at all." 

He believes there is no right on the part of the free 
people of the free States to enter the slave States 
and interfere with the question of slavery ; hence he 
does not propose to go into Kentucky and stir up a 
civil war and a servile war between the blacks and 
the whites. All he proposes is to invite the people 
of Illinois and every other free State to band 
together as one sectional party, governed and 
divided by a geographical line, to make war upon 
the institution of slavery in the slaveholding States. 



126 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

He is going to carry it out by means of a political 
party that has its adherents only in the free States 
— a political party that does not pretend that it can 
give a solitary vote in the slave States of the Union ; 
and by this sectional vote he is going to elect a 
President of the United States, form a cabinet, and 
administer the government on sectional grounds, 
being the power of the North over that of the South. 
In other words, he invites a war of the North against 
the South, a warfare of the free States against the 
slaveholding States. He asks all men in the free 
States to conspire to exterminate slavery in the 
Southern States, so as to make them all free, and 
then he notifies the South that, unless they are going 
to submit to our efforts to exterminate their institu- 
tions, they must band together and plant slavery in 
Illinois and every Northern State. He says that the 
States must all be free or must all be slave. On this 
point I take issue with him directly. I assert that 
Illinois has a right to decide the slavery question for 
herself. We have decided it, and I think we have 
done it wisely ; but whether wisely or unwisely, it is 
our business, and the people of no other State have 
any right to interfere with us, directly or indirectly. 
Claiming as we do this right for ourselves, we must 
concede it to every other State, to be exercised by 
them respectively. 

Now, Mr. Lincoln says that he will not enter into 
Kentucky to abolish slavery there, but that all he 
will do is to fight slavery in Kentucky from Illinois. 
He will not go over there to set fire to the match. I 
do not think he would. Mr. Lincoln is a very 



Stephen A. Douglas 127 

prudent man. He would not deem it wise to go over 
into Kentucky to stir up this strife, but he would 
do it from this side of the river. Permit me to 
inquire whether the wrong, the outrage, of inter- 
ference by one State with the local concerns of 
another is worse when you actually invade them 
than it would be if you carried on the warfare from 
another State? For the purpose of illustration, sup- 
pose the British Government should plant a battery 
on the Niagara River, opposite Buffalo, and throw 
their shells over into Buffalo, where they should ex- 
plode and blow up the houses and destroy the town. 
We call the British Government to an account, and 
they say, in the language of Mr. Lincoln, We did not 
enter into the limits of the United States to interfere 
with you; we planted the battery on our own soil, 
and had a right to shoot from our own soil; and if 
our shells and balls fell in Buffalo and killed your 
inhabitants, why, it is your lookout, not ours. Thus, 
Mr. Lincoln is going to plant his iVbolition batteries 
all along the banks of the Ohio River, and throw his 
shells into Virginia and Kentucky and into Missouri, 
and blow up the institution of slavery; and when 
we arraign him for his unjust interference with the 
institutions of the other States, he says, Why, I 
never did enter into Kentucky to interfere with her; 
I do not propose to do it ; I only propose to take care 
of my own head by keeping on this side of the river, 
out of harm's way. But yet he says he is going to 
persevere in this system of sectional warfare, and 1 
have no doubt he is sincere in what he sa3^s. He says 
that the existence of the Union depends upon his 



128 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

success in firing into these slave States until he 
exterminates them. He says that unless he shall 
play his batteries successfully, so as to abolish slavery 
in every one of the States, that the Union shall be 
dissolved; and he says that a dissolution of the 
Union would be a terrible calamity. Of course it 
would. We are all friends of the Union. We all 
believe — I do — that our lives, our liberties, our hopes 
in the future, depend upon the preservation and 
perpetuity of this glorious Union. I believe that the 
hopes of the friends of liberty throughout the w^orld 
depend upon the perpetuity of the American Union. 
But while I believe that my mode of preserving the 
Union is a very different one from that of Mr. Lin- 
coln : I believe that the Union can only be preserved 
by maintaining inviolate the Constitution of the 
United States as our fathers have made it. That 
Constitution guarantees to the people of every State 
the right to have slavery or not have it; to have 
negroes or not have them; to have Maine liquor 
laws or not have them; to have just such institutions 
as they choose, each State being left free to decide 
for itself. The framers of that Constitution never 
conceived the idea that uniformity in the domestic 
institutions of the different States was either desirable 
or possible. They well understood that the laws and 
institutions which would be well adapted to the 
granite hills of New Hampshire would be unfit for the 
rice plantations of South Carolina ; they well under- 
stood that each one of the thirteen States had dis- 
tinct and separate interests, and required distinct 
and separate local laws and local institutions. And 



Stephen A. Douglas 129 

in view of that fact they provided that each Statp 
should retain its sovereign power within its own 
limits, with the right to make just such laws and just 
such institutions as it saw proper, under the belief 
that no two of them would be alike. If they had 
supposed that uniformity was desirable and possible, 
why did they provide for a separate Legislature for 
each State ? Why did they not blot out State sover- 
eignty and State legislatures, and give all the power 
to Congress, in order that the laws might be uniform ? 
For the very reason that uniformity, in their opin- 
ion, was neither desirable nor possible. We have in- 
creased from thirteen States to thirty-two States; 
and just in proportion as the number of States in- 
creases and our territory expands, there will be a 
still greater variety and dissimilarity of climate, of 
production, and of interest, requiring a correspond- 
ing dissimilarity and variety in the local laws and 
institutions adapted thereto. The laws that are 
necessary in the mining regions of California would 
be totally useless and vicious on the prairies of 
Illinois; the laws that would suit the lumber regions 
of Maine or of Minnesota would be totally useless and 
valueless in the tobacco regions of Virginia and 
Kentucky; the laws which would suit the manu- 
facturing districts of New England would be totally 
unsuited to the planting regions of the Carolinas, of 
Georgia, and of Louisiana. Each State is supposed 
to have interests separate and distinct from each and 
every other ; and hence must have laws different from 
each and every other State, in order that its laws 
shall be adapted to the condition and necessities of 



130 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the people. Hence I insist that our institutions rest 
on the theory that there shall be dissimilarity and 
variety in the local laws and institutions of the 
different States, instead of all being uniform; and 
you find, my friends, that Mr. Lincoln and myself 
differ radically and totally on the fundamental 
principles of this government. He goes for con- 
solidation, for uniformity in our local institutions, 
for blotting out State rights and State sovereignty, 
and consolidating all the power in the Federal Gov- 
ernment, for converting these thirty-two sovereign 
States into one empire, and making uniformity 
throughout the length and breadth of the land. On 
the other hand, I go for maintaining the authority 
of the Federal Government within the limits marked 
out by the Constitution, and then for maintaining 
and preserving the sovereignty of each and all of the 
States of the Union, in order that each State may 
regulate and adopt its own local institutions in its 
own way, without interference from any power 
whatsoever. Thus you find there is a distinct issue 
of principles — principles irreconcilable — between Mr. 
Lincoln and myself. He goes for consolidation and 
uniformity in our government ; I go for maintaining 
the confederation of the sovereign States under the 
Constitution as our fathers made it, leaving each 
State at liberty to manage its own affairs and ow^n 
internal institutions. 

Mr. Lincoln makes another point upon me, and 
rests his whole case upon these two points. His last 
point is, that he will wage a warfare upon the Supreme 
Coui't of the United States because of the Dred Scott 



Stephen A. Douglas 131 

decision. He takes occasion, in his speech made 
before the Repubhcan Convention, in my absence, to 
arraign me, not only for having expressed my ac- 
quiescence in that decision, but to charge me with 
being a conspirator with that court in devising that 
decision three years before Dred Scott ever thought 
of commencing a suit for his freedom. The object of 
his speech was to convey the idea to the people that 
the court could not be trusted, that the late Presi- 
dent could not be trusted, that the present one could 
not be trusted, and that Mr. Douglas could not be 
trusted; that they were all conspirators in bringing 
about that corrupt decision, to which Mr. Lincoln is 
determined he will never yield a willing obedience. 
He makes two points upon the Dred Scott decision. 
The first is that he objects to it because the court 
decided that negroes descended of slave parents are 
not citizens of the United States; and, secondly, 
because they have decided that the Act of Congress 
passed 8th of March, 1820, prohibiting slavery in all 
of the Territories north of 36° 30', was unconstitu- 
tional and void, and hence did not have effect in 
emancipating a slave brought into that Territory. 
And he will not submit to that decision. He says 
that he will not fight the judges or the United 
States marshals in order to liberate Dred Scott, but 
that he will not respect that decision, as a rule of law 
binding on this country, in the future. Why not? 
Because, he says, it is unjust. How is he going to 
remedy it? Why, he says he is going to reverse it. 
How? He is going to take an appeal. To whom is 
he going to appeal ? The Constitution of the United 



132 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

States provides that the Supreme Court is the ulti- 
mate tribunal, the highest judicial tribunal on earth; 
and Mr. Lincoln is going to appeal from that. To 
whom? I know he appealed to the Republican 
State Convention of Illinois, and I believe that Con- 
vention reversed the decision; but I am not aware 
that they have yet carried it into effect. How are 
they going to make that reversal effectual? Why, 
Mr. Lincoln tells us in his late Chicago speech. He 
explains it as clear as light. He says to the people of 
Illinois that if you elect him to the Senate he will 
introduce a bill to re-enact the law which the court 
pronounced unconstitutional. [Shouts of laughter, 
and voices, ''Spot the law."] Yes, he is going to 
spot the law. The court pronounces that law, pro- 
hibiting slavery, unconstitutional and void, and Mr. 
Lincoln is going to pass an act reversing that decision 
and making it valid. I never heard before of an ap- 
peal being taken from the Supreme Court to the 
Congress of the United States to reverse its decision. 
I have heard of appeals being taken from Congress 
to the Supreme Court to declare a statute void. 
That has been done from the earliest days of Chief 
Justice Marshall down to the present time. 

The Supreme Court of Illinois do not hesitate to 
pronounce an Act of the Legislature void, as being 
repugnant to the Constitution, and the Supreme 
Court of the United States is vested by the Constitu- 
tion with that very power. The Constitution says 
that the judicial power of the United States shall be 
vested in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts 
^s Congress shall, from time to time, ordain and 



Stephen A. Douglas 133 

establish. Hence it is the province and duty of 
the Supreme Court to pronounce judgment on the 
validity and constitutionality of an Act of Congress. 
In this case they have done so, and Mr. Lincoln 
will not submit to it, and he is going to reverse it by 
another Act of Congress of the same tenor. My 
opinion is that Mr. Lincoln ought to be on the 
Supreme Bench himself, when the Republicans get 
into power, if that kind of law knowledge qualifies a 
man for the bench. But Mr. Lincoln intimates that 
there is another mode by which he can reverse the 
Dred Scott decision. How is that? Why, he is 
going to appeal to the people to elect a President 
who will appoint judges who will reverse the Dred 
Scott decision. Well, let us see how that is going 
to be done. First, he has to carry on his sectional 
organization, a party confined to the free States, 
making war upon the slaveholding States until he 
gets a Republican President elected. ["He never 
will, sir."] I do not believe he ever will. But sup- 
pose he should; when that Republican President 
shall have taken his seat (Mr. Seward, for instance), 
will he then proceed to appoint judges ? No! he will 
have to wait until the present judges die before he 
can do that ; and perhaps his four years would be out 
before a majority of these judges found it agreeable 
to die; and it is very possible, too, that Mr. Lincoln's 
senatorial term would expire before these judges 
would be accommodating enough to die. If it should 
so happen I do not see a very great prospect for Mr. 
Lincoln to reverse the Dred Scott decision. But 
suppose they should die, then how are the new judges 



134 Lincoln and Dousrlas Debates 



to be appointed ? Why, the Repubhcan President is 
to call upon the candidates and catechise them, and 
ask them, "How will you decide this case if I 
appoint you judge?" Suppose, for instance, Mr. 
Lincoln to be a candidate for a vacancy on the 
vSupreme Bench to fill Chief Justice Taney's place, 
and when he applied to Seward, the latter would say, 
"Mr. Lincoln, I cannot appoint you until I know 
how you will decide the Dred Scott case?" Mr. 
Lincoln tells him, and he then asks him how he will 
decide Tom Jones's case, and Bill Wilson's case, and 
thus catechises the judge as to how he will decide 
any case which may arise before him. Suppose you 
get a Supreme Court composed of such judges, who 
have been appointed by a partisan President upon 
their giving pledges how they would decide a case 
before it arose, — what confidence would you have 
in such a court? Would not your court be prosti- 
tuted beneath the contempt of all mankind ? What 
man would feel that his liberties were safe, his right 
of person or property was secure, if the Supreme 
Bench, that august tribunal, the highest on earth, 
was brought down to that low, dirty pool wherein the 
judges are to give pledges in advance how they will 
decide all the (questions which ma}^ be brought 
before them? It is a proposition to make that court 
the corrupt, unscrupulous tool of a political party. 
But Mr. Lincoln cannot conscientiously submit, he 
thinks, to the decision of a court composed of a 
majority of Democrats. If he cannot, how can he 
expect us to have confidence in a court composed of 
a majority of Republicans, selected for the purpose 



Stephen A. Douglas 135 

of deciding against the Democracy, and in favor of 
the RepubHcans ? The very proposition carries with 
it the demorahzation and degradation destructive of 
the judicial department of the Federal Government. 
I say to you, fellow-citizens, that I have no war- 
fare to make upon the Supreme Court because of the 
Dred Scott decision. I have no complaints to make 
against that court because of that decision. My 
private opinions on some points of the case may 
have been one way, and on other points of the case 
another; in some things concurring with the court, 
and in others dissenting ; but what have my private 
opinions in a question of law to do with the decision 
after it has been pronounced by the highest judicial 
tribunal known to the Constitution? You, sir [ad- 
dressing the chairman], as an eminent lawyer, have 
a right to entertain your opinions on any question 
that comes before the court, and to appear before the 
tribunal and maintain them boldly and with tenacity 
until the final decision shall have been pronounced; 
and then, sir, whether you are sustained or over- 
ruled, your duty as a lawyer and a citizen is to bow 
in deference to that decision. I intend to yield 
obedience to the decisions of the highest tribunals 
in the land in all cases, whether their opinions are 
in conformity with my views as a lawyer or not. 
When we refuse to abide by judicial decisions, what 
protection is there left for life and property? To 
whom shall you appeal? To mob law, to partisan 
caucuses, to town meetings, to revolution? Where 
is the remedy when you refuse obedience to the con- 
stituted authorities? I will not stop to inquire 



13^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

whether I agree or disagree with all the opinions 
expressed by Judge Taney or any other judge. It is 
enough for me to know that the decision has been 
made. It has been made by a tribunal appointed 
by the Constitution to make it; it was a point 
within their jurisdiction, and I am bound by it. 

But, my friends, Mr. Lincoln says that this Dred 
Scott decision destroys the doctrine of popular 
sovereignty, for the reason that the court has 
decided that Congress had no power to prohibit 
slavery in the Territories, and hence he infers that it 
would decide that the Territorial legislatures could 
not prohibit slavery there. I will not stop to in- 
quire whether the court will carry the decision that 
far or not. It would be interesting as a matter of 
theory, but of no importance in practice; for this 
reason, that if the people of a Territory want slavery 
they will have it, and if they do not want it they will 
drive it out, and you cannot force it on them. 
Slavery cannot exist a day in the midst of an 
unfriendly people with unfriendly laws. There is 
truth and wisdom in a remark made to me by an 
eminent Southern senator, when speaking of this 
technical right to take slaves into the Territories. 
Said he : 

" I do not care a fig which way the decision shall be, 
for it is of no particular consequence; slavery cannot 
exist a day or an hour in any Territory or State unless it 
has affirmative laws sustaining and supporting it, fur- 
nishing police regulations and remedies ; and an omission 
to furnish them would be as fatal as a constitutional 
prohibition. Without affirmative legislation in its favor, 



Stephen A. Douglas 137 

slavery could not exist any longer than a new-born 
infant could survive under the heat of the sun, on a 
barren rock, without protection. It would wilt and die 
for the want of support." 

So it would be in the Territories. See the illustra- 
tion in Kansas. The Republicans have told 3^ou, dur- 
ing the whole history of that Territory, down to last 
winter, that the pro-slavery party in the Legislature 
had passed a pro-slavery code, establishing and sus- 
taining slavery in Kansas, but that this pro- slavery 
Legislature did not truly represent the people, but 
was imposed upon them by an invasion from Missouri ; 
and hence the Legislature were one way, and the peo- 
ple another. Granting all this, and what has been the 
result ? With laws supporting slavery, but the people 
against, there are not as many slaves in Kansas to- 
day as there were on the day the Nebraska Bill passed 
and the Missouri Compromise was repealed. Why? 
Simply because slaveowners knew that if they took 
their slaves into Kansas, where a majority of the 
people were opposed to slavery, that it would soon 
be abolished, and they would lose their right of 
property in consequence of taking them there. For 
that reason they would not take or keep them there. 
If there had been a majority of the people in favor 
of slavery, and the climate had been favorable, they 
would have taken them there; but the climate not 
being suitable, the interest of the people being op- 
posed to it, and a majority being against it, the 
slaveowner did not find it profitable to take his 
slaves there, and consequent!}^ there are not as many 
slaves there to-day as on the day the Missouri 



138 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Compromise was repealed. This shows clearly that 
if the people do not want slavery they will keep it 
out; and if they do want it, they will protect it. 

You have a good illustration of this in the Ter- 
ritorial history of this State. You all remember that 
by the Ordinance of 1787 slavery was prohibited in 
Illinois; yet you all know, particularly you old 
settlers who were here in Territorial times, that the 
Territorial Legislature, in defiance of that Ordinance, 
passed a law allowing you to go into Kentucky, buy 
slaves, and bring them into the Territory, having 
them sign indentures to serve you and your posterity 
ninety-nine years, and their posterity thereafter to 
do the same. This hereditary slavery was intro- 
duced in defiance of the Act of Congress. That was 
the exercise of popular sovereignty, — the right of a 
Territory to decide the question for itself in defiance 
of the Act of Congress. On the other hand, if the 
people of a Territory are hostile to slavery, they will 
drive it out. Consequently, this theoretical ques- 
tion raised upon the Dred Scott decision is worthy 
of no consideration whatsoever, for it is only brought 
into these political discussions and used as a hobby 
upon which to ride into office, or out of which to 
manufacture political capital. 

But Mr. Lincoln's main objection to the Dred 
Scott decision I have reserved for my conclusion. 
His principal objection to that decision is that it 
was intended to deprive the negro of the rights of 
citizenship in the different States of the Union. 
Well, suppose it was, — and there is no doubt that 
that was its legal effect,— what is his objection to it? 



Stephen A. Douglas 139 

Why, he thinks that a negro ought to be permitted 
to have the rights of citizenship. He is in favor of 
negro citizenship, and opposed to the Dred Scott 
decision, because it declares that a negro is not a 
citizen, and hence is not entitled to vote. Here I 
have a direct issue with Mr. Lincoln. I am not in 
favor of negro citizenship. I do not believe that a 
negro is a citizen or ought to be a citizen. I believe 
that this government of ours was founded, and 
wisely founded, upon the white basis. It was made 
by white men for the benefit of white men and their 
posterity, to be executed and managed by white men. 
I freely concede that humanity requires us to extend 
all the protection, all the privileges, all the immuni- 
ties, to the Indian and the negro which they are 
capable of enjoying consistent with the safety of 
society. You may then ask me what are those 
rights, what is the nature and extent of the rights 
which a negro ought to have? My answer is that 
this is a question for each State and each Territory 
to decide for itself. In Illinois we have decided 
that a negro is not a slave, but we have at the same 
time determined that he is not a citizen and shall 
not enjoy any political rights. I concur in the 
VN^isdom of that polic}^ and am content with it. I 
assert that the sovereignty of Illinois had a right to 
determine that question as we have decided it, and 
I deny that any other State has a right to interfere 
with us or call us to account for that decision. In 
the State of Maine they have decided by their con- 
stitution that the negro shall exercise the elective 
franchise and hold office on an equality with the 



I40 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

white man. Whilst I do not concur in the good 
sense or correct taste of that decision on the part of 
Maine, I have no disposition to quarrel with her. 
It is her business, and not ours. If the people of 
Maine desire to be put on an equality with the 
negro, I do not know that anybody in this State 
will attempt to prevent it. If the white people of 
Maine think a negro their equal, and that he has a 
right to come and kill their vote by a negro vote, 
they have a right to think so, I suppose, and I have 
no disposition to interfere with them. Then, again, 
passing over to New York, we find in that State 
they have provided that a negro may vote provided 
he holds $250 worth of property, but that he shall 
not unless he does; that is to say, they will allow a 
negro to vote if he is rich, but a poor fellow they will 
not allow to vote. In New York they think a rich 
negro is equal to a white man. Well, that is a matter 
of taste with them. If they think so in that State, 
and do not carry the doctrine outside of it and pro- 
pose to interfere with us, I have no quarrel to make 
with them. It is their business. There is a great 
deal of philosophy and good sense in a saying of 
Fridley of Kane. Fridley had a lawsuit before a 
justice of the peace, and the justice decided it against 
him. This he did not like; and standing up and 
looking at the justice for a moment, "Well, Squire," 
said he, "if a man chooses to make a damation fool 
of himself, I suppose there is no law against it." 
That is all I have to say about these negro regula- 
tions and this negro voting in other States where 
they have systems different from ours. If it is their 



Stephen A. Douglas 141 

wish to have it so, be it so. There is no cause to 
complain. Kentucky has decided that it is not con- 
sistent with her safety and her prosperity to allow 
a negro to have either political rights or his freedom, 
and hence she makes him a slave. That is her 
business, not mine. It is her right under the Con- 
stitution of the country. The sovereignty of Ken- 
tucky, and that alone, can decide that question ; and 
when she decides it, there is no power on earth to 
which you can appeal to reverse it. Therefore, 
leave Kentucky as the Constitution has left her, a 
sovereign, independent State, with the exclusive 
right to have slavery or not, as she chooses; and so 
long as I hold powder I will maintain and defend her 
rights against any assaults, from whatever quarter 
they may come. 

I will never stop to inquire whether I approve or 
disapprove of the domestic institutions of a State. 
I maintain her sovereign rights. I defend her 
sovereignty from all assault, in the hope that she 
will join in defending us when we are assailed by any 
outside power. How are we to protect our sover- 
eign rights, to keep slavery out, unless we protect 
the sovereign rights to every other State to decide 
the question for itself? Let Kentucky, or South 
Carolina, or any other State attempt to interfere in 
Illinois, and tell us that we shall establish slavery, 
in order to make it uniform, according to Mr. 
Lincoln's proposition, throughout the Union; let 
them come here and tell us that we must and shall 
have slavery, — and I will call on you to follow me, 
and shed the last drop of our heart's blood in 



142 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

repelling the invasion and chastising their insolence. 
And if we would fight for our reserved rights and 
sovereign power in our own limits, we must respect 
the sovereignty of each other State. 

Hence, you find that Mr. Lincoln and myself come 
to a direct issue on this whole doctrine of slavery. 
He is going to wage a war against it everywhere, not 
only in Illinois, but in his native State of Kentucky. 
And why? Because he says that the Declaration 
of Independence contains this language: "We hold 
these truths to be self-evident — that all men are 
created equal; that they are endowed by their 
Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among 
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" ; 
and he asks whether that instrument does not 
declare that all men are created equal. Mr. Lincoln 
then goes on to say that that clause of the Declara- 
tion of Independence includes negroes. ["I say 
not."] Well, if you say not, I do not think 3'^ou will 
vote for Mr. Lincoln. Mr. Lincoln goes on to argue 
that the language "all men" included the negroes, 
Indians, and all inferior races. 

In his Chicago speech he says, in so many words, 
that it includes the negroes, that they were endowed 
by the Almighty with the right of equality with the 
white man, and therefore that that right is divine, — 
a right under the higher law; that the law of God 
makes them equal to the white man, and therefore 
that the law of the white man cannot deprive them 
of that right. This is Mr. Lincoln's argument. He 
is conscientious in his belief. I do not question his 
sincerity; I do not doubt that he, in his conscience, 



Stephen A. Douglas 143 

believes that the Almighty made the negro equal 
to the white man. He thinks that the negro is his 
brother. I do not think that the negro is any kin of 
mine at all. And here is the difference between us. 
I believe that the Declaration of Independence, in 
the words "all men are created equal," was intended 
to allude only to the people of the United States, to 
men of European birth or descent, being white men ; 
that they were created equal, and hence that Great 
Britain had no right to deprive them of their political 
and religious privileges; but the signers of that 
paper did not intend to include the Indian or the 
negro in that Declaration; for if they had, would 
they not have been bound to abolish slavery in every 
State and colony from that day? Remember, too, 
that at the time the Declaration was put forth, every 
one of the thirteen colonies were slaveholding colo- 
nies ; every man who signed that Declaration repre- 
sented slaveholding constituents. Did those signers 
mean by that act to charge themselves and all their 
constituents with having violated the law of God, in 
holding the negro in an inferior condition to the white 
man? And yet, if they included negroes in that 
term, they were bound, as conscientious men, that 
day and that hour, not only to have abolished 
slavery throughout the land, but to have conferred 
political rights and privileges on the negro, and 
elevated him to an equality with the white man. 
["They did not do it."] I know they did not do it; 
and the very fact that they did not shows that they 
did not understand the language they used to in- 
clude any but the white race. Did they mean to say 



144 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

that the Indian, on this continent, was created equal 
to the white man, and that he was endowed by the 
Almighty with inalienable rights, — rights so sacred 
that they could not be taken away by any constitu- 
tion or law that man could pass ? Why, their whole 
action toward the Indian showed that they never 
dreamed that they were bound to put him on an 
equality. I am not only opposed to negro equality, 
but I am opposed to Indian equality. I am opposed 
to putting the coolies, now importing into this 
country, on an equality with us, or putting the 
Chinese or any inferior race on an equality with 
us. I hold the white race, the European race, I 
care not whether Irish, German, French, Scotch, 
English, or to what nation they belong, so they are 
the white race, to be our equals. And I am for 
placing them, as our fathers did, on an equality with 
us. Emigrants from Europe, and their descendants, 
constitute the people of the United States. The 
Declaration of Independence only included the white 
people of the United States. The Constitution of the 
United States was framed b}' the white people; it 
ought to be administered by them, leaving each 
State to make such regulations concerning the negro 
as it chooses, allowing him political rights or not, as 
it chooses, and allowing him civil rights or not, as it 
may determine for itself. 

Let us only carry out those principles, and we will 
have peace and harmony in the different States. But 
Mr. Lincoln's conscientious scruples on this point 
govern his actions, and I honor him for following 
them, although I abhor the doctrine which he 



Stephen A. Douglas 145 

preaches. His conscientious scruples lead him to 
believe that the negro is entitled by divine right to 
the civil and political privileges of citizenship on an 
equality with the white man. 

For that reason he says he wishes the Dred Scott 
decision reversed. He wishes to confer those privi- 
leges of citizenship on the negro. Let us see how 
he will do it. He will first be called upon to strike 
out of the Constitution of Illinois that clause which 
prohibits free negroes and slaves from Kentucky 
or any other State coming into Illinois. When he 
blots out that clause, when he lets down the door or 
opens the gate for all the negro population to flow 
in and cover our prairies, until in midday they will 
look dark and black as night, — when he shall have 
done this, his mission will yet be unfulfilled. Then 
it will be that he will apply his principles of negro 
equality; that is, if he can get the Dred Scott deci- 
sion reversed in the mean time. He will then change 
the Constitution again, and allow negroes to vote 
and hold office, and will make them eligible to the 
Legislature, so that thereafter they can have the 
right men for United States Senators. He will allow 
them to vote to elect the Legislature, the judges, 
and the Governor, and will make them eligible to the 
office of judge or Governor, or to the Legislature. 
He will put them on an equality with the white man. 
What then? Of course, after making them eligible 
to the judiciary, when he gets Cuffee elevated to the 
bench, he certainly will not refuse his judge the 
privilege of marrying any woman he may select! I 
submit to you whether these are not the legitimate 



146 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

consequences of his doctrine? If it be true, as he 
says, that by the Declaration of Independence and 
by divine law the negro is created the equal of the 
white man ; if it be true that the Dred Scott decision 
is unjust and wrong, because it deprives the negro 
of citizenship and equality with the white man, — 
then does it not follow that if he had the power he 
would make negroes citizens, and give them all the 
rights and all the privileges of citizenship on an 
equality with white men ? I think that is the in- 
evitable conclusion. I do not doubt Mr. Lincoln's 
conscientious conviction on the subject, and I do not 
doubt that he will carry out that doctrine if he ever 
has the power; but I resist it because I am utterly 
opposed to any political amalgamation or any other 
amalgamation on this continent. We are witnessing 
the result of giving civil and political rights to infe- 
rior races in Mexico, in Central America, in South 
America, and in the West India Islands. Those 
young men who went from here to Mexico to fight 
the battles of their country in the Mexican war can 
tell you the fruits of negro equality with the white 
man. They will tell you that the result of that 
equality is social amalgamation, demoralization, 
and degradation below the capacity for self-govern- 
ment. 

My friends, if we wish to preserve this government 
we must maintain it on the basis on which it was 
established; to wit, the white basis. We must pre- 
serve the purity of the race not only in our politics, 
but in our domestic relations. We must then pre- 
serve the sovereignty of the States, and we must 



Stephen A. Douglas 147 

maintain the Federal Union by preserving the 
Federal Constitution inviolate. Let us do that, 
and our Union will not only be perpetual, but may 
extend until it shall spread over the entire continent. 
Fellow-citizens, I have already detained you too 
long. I have exhausted myself and wearied you, 
and owe you an apology f jr the desultory manner in 
which I have discussed these topics. I will have an 
opporttinity of addressing you again before the 
November election comes off. I come to you to 
appeal to your judgment as American citizens, to 
take your verdict of approval or disapproval upon 
the discharge of my public duty and my principles 
as compared with those of Mr. Lincoln. If you con- 
scientiously believe that his principles are more in 
harmony with the feelings of the American people 
and the interests and honor of the Republic, elect 
him. If, on the contrary, you believe that my 
principles are more consistent with those great 
principles upon which our fathers framed this govern- 
ment, then I shall ask you to so express your opinion 
at the polls. I am aware that it is a bitter and 
severe contest, but I do not doubt what the d cision 
of the people of Illinois will be. I do not anticipate 
any personal collision between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself. You all know I am an amiable, good- 
natured man, and I take great pleasure in bearing 
testimony to the fact that Mr. Lincoln is a kind- 
hearted, amiable, good-natured gentleman, with 
whom no man has a right to pick a quarrel, even if 
he wanted one. He is a worthy gentleman. I have 
known him for twenty-five years, and there is no 



148 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

better citizen and no kinder-hearted man. He is a 
fine lawyer, possesses high ability, and there is no 
objection to him, except the monstrous revolutionary 
doctrines with which he is identified and which 
he conscientiously entertains, and is determined to 
carry out if he gets the power. 

He has one element of strength upon which he 
relies to accomplish his object, and that is his alliance 
with certain men in this State claiming to be Demo- 
crats, whose avowed object is to use their power to 
prostrate the Democratic nominees. He hopes he 
can secure the few men claiming to be friends of the 
Lecompton Constitution, and for that reason you 
will find he does not say a word against the Le- 
compton Constitution or its supporters. He is as 
silent as the grave upon that subject. Behold Mr. 
Lincoln courting Lecompton votes, in order that he 
may go to the Senate as the representative of Repub- 
lican principles! You know that that alliance exists. 
I think you will find that it will ooze out before the 
contest is over. It must be a contest of principle. 
Either the radical Abolition principles of Mr. 
Lincoln must be maintained, or the strong, constitu- 
tional, national Democratic principles with which 
I am identified must be carried out. I shall be 
satisfied whatever way you decide. I have been 
sustained by the people of Illinois with a steadiness, 
a firmness, and an enthusiasm which makes my 
heart overflow with gratitude. If I was now to be 
consigned to private life I would have nothing to 
complain of. I would even then owe you a debt of 
gratitude which the balance of my life could not 



Stephen A. Douglas 149 

repay. But, my friends, you have discharged every 
obligation you owe to me. I have been a thousand 
times paid by the welcome you have extended to me 
since I have entered the State on my return home 
this time. Your reception not only discharges all 
obligations, but it furnishes inducement to renewed 
efforts to serve you in the future. If you think Mr. 
Lincoln will do more to advance the interests and 
elevate the character of Illinois than myself, it is 
your duty to elect him; if you think he would do 
more to preserve the peace of the country and 
perpetuate the Union than myself, then elect him. I 
leave the question in your hands, and again tender 
you my profound thanks for the cordial and heart- 
felt welcome tendered to me this evening. 



SPEECH OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 

Delivered in Springfield, Saturday Evening, July 17, 1858. (Mr. 
Douglas was not present.) 

Fellow-Citizens: Another election, which is 
deemed an important one, is approaching, and, as I 
suppose, the Repubhcan party will, without much 
difficulty, elect their State ticket. But in regard to 
the Legislature, we, the Republicans, labor under 
some disadvantages. In the first place, we have 
a Legislature to elect upon an apportionment of 
the representation made several years ago, when the 
proportion of the population was far greater in the 
South (as compared with the North) than it now is; 
and inasmuch as our opponents hold almost entire 
sway in the South, and we a correspondingly large 
majority in the North, the fact that we are now to 
be represented as we were years ago, when the 
population was different, is to us a very great dis- 
advantage. We had in the year 1855, according 
to law, a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants, 
taken for the purpose of a new apportionment of 
representation. We know what a fair apportion- 
ment of representation upon that census would give 
us. We know that it could not, if fairly made, fail 
to give the Republican party from six to ten more 
members of the Legislature than they can probably 
get as the law now stands. It so happened at the last 

session of the Legislature that our opponents, hold- 

150 



Abraham Lincoln 151 

ing the control of both branches of the Legislature, 
steadily refused to give us such an apportionment 
as we were rightly entitled to have upon the census 
already taken. The Legislature steadily refused to 
give us such an apportionment as we were rightfully 
entitled to have upon the census taken of the popula- 
tion of the State. The Legislature would pass no 
bill upon that subject, except such as was at least as 
unfair to us as the old one, and in which, in some 
instances, two men in the Democratic regions were 
allowed to go as far toward sending a member to the 
Legislature as three were in the Republican regions. 
Comparison was made at the time as to representa- 
tive and senatorial districts, which completely de- 
monstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill 
was passed and tendered to the Republican Governor 
for his signature; but, principally for the reasons I 
have stated, he withheld his approval, and the bill 
fell without becoming a law. 

Another disadvantage under which we labor is 
that there are one or two Democratic Senators who 
will be members of the next Legislature, and will 
vote for the election of Senator, who are holding 
over in districts in which we could, on all reasonable 
calculation, elect men of our own, if we only had the 
chance of an election. When we consider that there 
are but twenty-five Senators in the Senate, taking 
two from the side where they rightfull}^ belong, 
and adding them to the other, is to us a disadvan- 
tage not to be lightly regarded. Still, so it is; we 
have this to contend with. Perhaps there is no 
ground of complaint on our part. In attending to 



152 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the many things involved in the last general election 
for President, Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Super- 
intendent of Public Instruction, Members of Con- 
gress, of the Legislature, County Officers, and so on, 
we allowed these things to happen by want of 
sufficient attention, and we have no cause to com- 
plain of our adversaries, so far as this matter is con- 
cerned. But we have some cause to complain of 
the refusal to give us a fair apportionment. 

There is still another disadvantage under which 
we labor, and to which I will ask your attention. 
It arises out of the relative positions of the two 
persons who stand before the State as candidates 
for the Senate. Senator Douglas is of world-wide 
renown. All the anxious politicians of his party, or 
who have been of his party for years past, have been 
looking upon him as certainly, at no distant day, to 
be the President of the United States. They have 
seen in his round, jolly, fruitful face post-offices, 
land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments, 
chargeships and foreign missions bursting and 
sprouting out in wonderful exuberance, ready to be 
laid hold of by their greedy hands. And as they 
have been gazing upon this attractive picture so 
long, they cannot, in the little distraction that has 
taken place in the party, bring themselves to give up 
the charming hope; but with greedier anxiet}^ they 
rush about him, sustain him, and give him marches, 
triumphal entries, and receptions beyond what even 
in the days of his highest prosperity they could have 
brought about in his favor. On the contrary, 
nobody has ever expected me to be President. In 



Abraham Lincoln 153 

my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen that 
any cabbages were sprouting out. These are dis- 
advantages all, taken together, that the Republicans 
labor under. We have to fight this battle upon 
principle, and upon principle alone. I am, in a 
certain sense, made the standard-bearer in behalf 
of the Republicans. I was made so merely because 
there had to be some one so placed, — I being in 
nowise preferable to any other one of twenty-five, 
perhaps a hundred, we have in the Republican ranks. 
Then I say I wish it to be distinctly understood and 
borne in mind that we have to fight this battle 
without many — perhaps without any — of the ex- 
ternal aids which are brought to bear against us. So 
I hope those with whom I am surrounded have 
principle enough to nerve themselves for the task, 
and leave nothing undone that can be fairly done to 
bring about the right result. 

After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his 
movements were made known by the public prints, 
he tarried a considerable time in the city of New 
York; and it was heralded that, like another 
Napoleon, he was lying by and framing the plan of 
his campaign. It was telegraphed to Washington 
City, and published in the Union, that he was fram- 
ing his plan for the purpose of going to Illinois 
to pounce upon and annihilate the treasonable and 
disunion speech which Lincoln had made here on 
the 1 6th of June. Now, I do suppose that the Judge 
really spent some time in New York maturing the 
plan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him. 
I have been able, by noting his movements since his 



154 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

arrival in Illinois, to discover evidences confirmatory 
of that allegation. I think I have been able to see 
what are the material points of that plan. I will, 
for a little while, ask your attention to some of them. 
What I shall point out, though not showing the 
whole plan, are, nevertheless, the main points, as I 
suppose. 

They are not very numerous. The first is popular 
sovereignty. The second and third are attacks upon 
my speech made on the i6th of June. Out of these 
three points — drawing within the range of popular 
sovereignty the question of the Lecompton Con- 
stitution — he makes his principal assault. Upon 
these his successive speeches are substantially one 
and the same. On this matter of popular sover- 
eignty I wish to be a little careful. Auxiliary to 
these main points, to be sure, are their thimderings 
of cannon, their marching and music, their fizzle- 
gigs and fireworks; but I will not waste time with 
them. They are btit the little trappings of the 
campaign. 

Coming to the substance, — the first point, — 
"popular sovereignty." It is to be labelled upon the 
cars in which he travels; put upon the hacks he 
rides in; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes 
under, and the banners which wave over him. It is 
to be dished up in as many varieties as a French 
cook can produce soups from potatoes. Now, as 
this is so great a staple of the plan of the campaign, 
it is worth while to examine it carefully; and if we 
examine only a very little, and do not allow ourselves 
to be misled, we shall be able to see that the whole 



Abraham Lincoln 155 

thing is the most arrant Quixotism that was ever 
enacted before a community. What is the matter 
of popular sovereignty ? The first thing, in order to 
understand it, is to get a good definition of what it is, 
and after that to see how it is applied. 

I suppose almost every one knows that, in this 
controversy, whatever has been said has had refer- 
ence to the question of negro slavery. We have 
not been in a controversy about the right of the 
people to govern themselves in the ordinary matters 
of domestic concern in the States and Territories. 
Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late messages (I think 
when he sent up the Lecompton Constitution) urged 
that the main point to which the public attention had 
been directed was not in regard to the great variety 
of small domestic matters, but was directed to the 
question of negro slavery ; and he asserts that if the 
people had had a fair chance to vote on that question 
there was no reasonable ground of objection in 
regard to minor questions. Now, while I think 
that the people had not had given, or offered, them 
a fair chance upon that slavery question, still, if 
there had been a fair submission to a vote upon that 
main question, the President's proposition would 
have been true to the utmost. Hence, when here- 
after I speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be 
understood as applying what I say to the question of 
slavery only, not to other minor domestic matters of 
a Territory or a State. 

Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of 
the past years of his life have been devoted to the 
question of "popular sovereignty," and that all the 



156 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does 
he mean to say that he has been devoting his life to 
securing to the people of the Territories the right to 
exclude slavery from the Territories? If he means 
so to say he means to deceive ; because he and every 
one knows that the decision of the Supreme Court, 
which he approves and makes especial ground of 
attack upon me for disapproving, forbids the 
people of a Territory to exclude slavery. This 
covers the whole ground, from the settlement of a 
Territory till it reaches the degree of maturity 
entitling it to form a State Constitution. So far as 
all that ground is concerned, the Judge is not sustain- 
ing popular sovereignty, but absolutely opposing it. 
He sustains the decision which declares that the 
popular will of the Territorv^ has no constitutional 
power to exclude slavery during their territorial 
existence. This being so, the period of time from 
the first settlement of a Territory till it reaches the 
point of forming a State Constitution is not the 
thing that the Judge has fought for or is fighting for, 
but, on the contrary, he has fought for, and is fight- 
ing for, the thing that annihilates and crushes out 
that same popular sovereignty. 

Well, so much being disposed of, what is left? 
Why, he is contending for the right of the people, 
when they come to make a State Constitution, to 
make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits 
themselves. I say again, that is quixotic. I defy 
contradiction when I declare that the Judge can find 
no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, 
there is nobody opposing that proposition on 



Abraham Lincoln 157 

principle. Let me not be misunderstood. I know 
that, with reference to the Lecompton Constitution, 
I may be misunderstood; but when you understand 
me correctly, my proposition will be true and 
accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has opposed, the 
right of the people, when they form a constitution, 
to form it for themselves. Mr. Buchanan and his 
friends have not done it; they, too, as well as the 
Republicans and the Anti-Lecompton Democrats, 
have not done it; but on the contrary, they together 
have insisted on the right of the people to form 
a constitution for themselves. The difference be- 
tween the Buchanan men on the one hand, and the 
Douglas men and the Republicans on the other, has 
not been on a question of principle, but on a question 
of jact. 

The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether 
the Lecompton Constitution had been fairh^ formed 
by the people or not. Mr. Buchanan and his friends 
have not contended for the contrary principle any 
more than the Douglas men or the Republicans. 
They have insisted that whatever of small irregular- 
ities existed in getting up the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion were such as happen in the settlement of all new 
Territories. The question was, Was it a fair emana- 
tion of the people ? It was a question of fact, and not 
of principle. As to the principle, all were agreed. 
Judge Douglas voted with the Republicans upon that 
matter of fact. 

He and they, by their voices and votes, denied 
that it was a fair emanation of the people. The 
Administration affirmed that it was. With respect 



158 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

to the evidence bearing upon that question of fact, 
I readily agree that Judge Douglas and the Repub- 
licans had the right on their side, and that the Ad- 
ministration was wrong. But I state again that, as 
a matter of principle, there is no dispute upon the 
right of a people in a Territory, merging into a State, 
to form a constitution for themselves without out- 
side interference from any quarter. This being so, 
what is Judge Douglas going to spend his life for ? Is 
he going to spend his life in maintaining a principle 
that nobody on earth opposes? Does he expect to 
stand up in majestic dignity, and go through his 
apotheosis and become a god in the maintaining of a 
principle which neither man nor mouse in all God's 
creation is opposing? Now something in regard to 
the Lecompton Constitution more specially; for I 
pass from this other question of popular sovereignty 
as the most arrant humbug that has ever been 
attempted on an intelligent community. 

As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already 
said that on the question of fact, as to whether it was 
a fair emanation of the people or not, Judge Douglas, 
with the Republicans and some Americans, had 
greatly the argument against the Administration; 
and while I repeat this, I wish to know what there 
is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Le- 
compton Constitution that entitles him to be con- 
sidered the only opponent to it, — as being par 
excellence the very quintessence of that opposition, 
I agree to the rightfulness of his opposition. He 
in the Senate and his class of men there formed 
the number three, and no more. In the House of 



Abraham Lincoln 159 

Representatives his class of men — the Anti-Le- 
compton Democrats — formed a number of about 
twenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat 
the measure, against one hundred and twelve. Of 
the votes of that one hundred and twenty, Judge 
Douglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which 
there were six Americans and ninety-four Repub- 
licans. I do not say that I am precisely accurate in 
their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use 
I am making of it. 

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the 
credit of doing that work, and the hundred none of it ? 
Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, the honor is to be 
divided and due credit is to be given to other parties, 
why is just so much given as is consonant with 
the wishes, the interests, and advancement of the 
twenty ? My understanding is, when a common job 
is done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in 
five dollars to your one, I have a right to take out 
five dollars to your one. But he does not so under- 
stand it. He declares the dividend of credit for 
defeating Lecompton upon a basis which seems 
unprecedented and incomprehensible. 

Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. 
It afterward took a sort of cooked-up shape, and 
was passed in the English bill. It is said by the 
Judge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. 
If it was a good thing, why is he entitled to more 
credit than others for the performance of that good 
act, unless there was something in the antecedents 
of the Republicans that might induce every one to 
expect them to join in that good work, and at the 



i6o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

same time something leading them to doubt that he 
would? Does he place his superior claim to credit 
on the ground that he performed a good act which 
was never expected of him ? He says I have a prone- 
ness for quoting Scripture. If I should do so now, 
it occurs that perhaps he places himself somewhat 
upon the ground of the parable of the lost sheep 
which went astray upon the mountains, and when 
the owner of the hundred sheep found the one that 
was lost, and threw it upon his shoulders and came 
home rejoicing, it was said that there was more 
rejoicing over the one sheep that was lost and had 
been found than over the ninety and nine in the fold. 
The application is made by the Saviour in this 
parable, thus: "Verily, I say unto you, there is more 
rejoicing in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, 
than over ninet)^ and nine just persons that need no 
repentance." 

And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this 
parable, let him repent. Let him not come up here 
and say: "I am the only just person; and you are 
the ninety-nine sinners! Repentance before forgive- 
ness is a provision of the Christian system, and on 
that condition alone will the Republicans grant his 
forgiveness. 

How will he prove that we have ever occupied a 
different position in regard to the Lecompton Con- 
stitution or any principle in it? He says he did not 
make his opposition on the ground as to whether it 
was a free or slave constitution, and he would have 
you understand that the Republicans made their 
opposition because it ultimately became a slave 



Abraham Lincoln i6i 

constitution. To make proof in favor of himself 
on this point, he reminds us that he opposed Le- 
compton before the vote was taken declaring whether 
the State was to be free or slave. But he forgets to 
say that our Republican Senator, Trumbull, made 
a speech against Lecompton even before he did. 

Why did he oppose it? Partly, as he declares, 
because the members of the convention w^ho framed 
it were not fairly elected by the people; that the 
people were not allowed to vote unless they had been 
registered; and that the people of whole counties, 
in some instances, were not registered. For these 
reasons he declares the Constitution was not an 
emanation, in any true sense, from the people. He 
also has an additional objection as to the mode of 
submitting the Constitution back to the people. 
But bearing on the question of whether the dele- 
gates were fairly elected, a speech of his, made some- 
thing more than twelve months ago, from this stand, 
becomes important. It was made a little while 
before the election of the delegates who made 
Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was 
every reason to hope and believe the election would 
be fair; and if any one failed to vote, it would be his 
own culpable fault. 

I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that 
speech. In that answer I made, substantially, the 
very argument with which he combated his Lecomp- 
ton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed 
to the facts that the people could not vote without 
being registered, and that the time for registering 
had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that 



i62 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Judge Douglas could be ignorant of these facts, 
which every one else in the nation so well knew. 

I now pass from popular sovereignty and Lecomp- 
ton. I may have occasion to refer to one or both. 

When he was preparing his plan of campaign, 
Napoleon -like, in New York, as appears by two 
speeches I have heard him deliver since his arrival 
in Illinois, he gave special attention to a speech of 
mine, delivered here on the i6\) of June last. He 
says that he carefully read that speech. He told us 
that at Chicago a week ago last night, and he re- 
peated it at Bloomington last night. Doubtless, he 
repeated it again to-day, though I did not hear him. 
In the first two places — Chicago and Bloomington — 
I heard him; to-day I did not. He said he had 
.^arefully examined that speech, — when, he did not 
say; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when 
he was in New York preparing his plan of campaign. 
I am glad he did read it carefully. He says it was 
evidently prepared with great care. I freely admit 
it was prepared with care. I claim not to be more 
free from errors than others, — perhaps scarcely so 
much ; but I was very careful not to put anything in 
that speech as a matter of fact, or make any infer- 
ences, which did not appear to me to be true and 
fully warrantable. If I had made any mistake, I 
was willing to be corrected; if I had drawn any 
inference in regard to Judge Douglas or any one else 
which was not warranted, I was fully prepared to 
modify it as soon as discovered. I planted myself 
upon the truth and the truth only, so far as I knew 
it, jr could be brought to know it. 



Abraham Lincoln 163 

Having made that speech with the most kindly 
feelings toward Judge Douglas, as manifested therein, 
I was gratified when I found that he had carefully 
examined it, and had detected n > error of fact, nor 
any inference against him, nor any misrepresenta- 
tions of which he thought fit to complain. In neither 
of the two speeches I have mentioned did he make 
any such complaint. I will thank any one who will 
inform me that he, in his speech to-day, pointed 
out anything I had stated respecting him as being 
erroneous. I presume there is no such thing. I 
have reason to be gratified that the care and caution 
used in that speech left it so that he, most of all 
others interested in discovering error, has not been 
able to point out one thing against him which he 
could say was wrong. He seizes upon the doctrines 
he supposes to be included in that speech, and de- 
clares that upon them will turn the issues of this 
campaign. He then quotes, or attempts to quote, 
from my speech. I will not say that he wilfully 
misquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately. His 
attempt at quoting is from a passage which I believe 
I can quote accurately from memory. I shall make 
the quotation now, with some comments upon it, as 
I have already said, in order that the Judge shall be 
left entirely without excuse fcr misrepresenting me. 
I do so now, as I hope, for the last time. I do this 
in great caution, in order that if he repeats his mis- 
representation it shall be plain to all that he does so 
wilfully. If, after all, he still persists, I shall be 
compelled to reconstruct the course I have marked 
out for myself, and draw upon such humble resources. 



164 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

as I have, for a new course, better suited to the real 
exigencies of the case. I set out in this campaign 
with the intention of conducting it strictly as a 
gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside 
polish. The latter I shall never be; but that which 
constitutes the inside of a gentleman I hope I under- 
stand, and am not less inclined to practise than 
others. It was my purpose and expectation that 
this canvass would be conducted upon principle, and 
with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my 
fault if this purpose and expectation shall be given 
up. 

He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of 
sections; that I propose all the local institutions of 
the different States shall become consolidated and 
uniform. What is there in the language of that 
speech which expresses such purpose or bears such 
construction? I have again and again said that I 
would not enter into any of the States to disturb 
the institution of slavery. Judge Douglas said, at 
Bloomington, that I used language most able and 
ingenious for concealing what I really meant; and 
that while I had protested against entering into the 
slave States, I nevertheless did mean to go on the 
banks of the Ohio and throw missiles into Kentucky, 
to disturb them in their domestic institutions. 

I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that 
the institution of slavery ought to be placed in the 
very attitude where the framers of this government 
placed it and left it. I do not understand that the 
framers of our Constitution left the people of the 
free States in the attitude of firing bombs or shells 



Abraham Lincoln 165 

into the slave States. I was not using that pas- 
sage for the purpose for which he infers I did use it. 
I said: 

"We are now far advanced into the fifth year since a 
policy was created for the avowed object and with the 
confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. 
Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not 
only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my 
opinion it will not cease till a crisis shall have been 
reached and passed. ' A house divided against itself can- 
not stand.' I believe that this government cannot en- 
dure permanently half slave and half free ; it will become 
all one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of 
slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it 
where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in 
the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will 
push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the 
States, old as well as new. North as well as South." 

Now, you all see, from that quotation, I did not 
express my wish on anything. In that passage I 
indicated no wish or purpose of my own; I simply 
expressed my expectation. Cannot the Judge per- 
ceive a distinction between a purpose and an expecta- 
tion? I have often expressed an expectation to die, 
but I have never expressed a wish to die. I said at 
Chicago, and now repeat, that I am quite aware this 
government has endured, half slave and, half free, for 
eighty-two years. I understand that little bit of 
history. I expressed the opinion I did because I 
perceived — or thought I perceived — a new set of 
causes introduced. I did say at Chicago, in my 
speech there, that I do wish to see the spread of 



1 66 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

slavery arrested, and to see it placed where the public 
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course 
of ultimate extinction. I said that because I sup- 
posed, when the public mind shall rest in that be- 
lief, we shall have peace on the slavery question. I 
have believed — and now believe — the public mind 
did rest on that belief up to the introduction of the 
Nebraska Bill. 

Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so 
far I rested in the hope and belief that it was in the 
course of ultimate extinction. For that reason it 
had been a minor question with me. I might have 
been mistaken; but I had believed, and now believe, 
that the whole public mind, that is, the mind of the 
great majority, had rested in that belief up to the 
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. But upon that 
event I became convinced that either I had been 
resting in a delusion, or the institution was being 
placed on a new basis, a basis for making it per- 
petual, national, and universal. Subsequent events 
have greatly confirmed me in that belief. I believe 
that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for that 
purpose. So believing, I have since then considered 
that question a paramount one. So believing, T 
thought the public mind will never rest till the 
power of Congress to restrict the spread of it shall 
again be acknowledged and exercised on the one hand 
or, on the other, all resistance be entirely crushed 
out. I have expressed that opinion, and I entertain 
it to-night. It is denied that there is any tendency 
to the nationalization of slavery in these States. 

Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his 



Abraham Lincoln 167 

speeches, when they were presenting him canes, 
silver plate, gold pitchers, and the like, for assault- 
ing Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his opinion 
that when this Constitution was formed it was the 
belief of no man that slavery would last to the present 
day. He said, what I think, that the framers of our 
Constitution placed the institution of slavery where 
the public mind rested in the hope that it was in the 
course of ultimate extinction. But he went on to say 
that the men of the present age, by their experience, 
have become wiser than the framers of the Constitu- 
tion, and the invention of the cotton gin had made 
the perpetuity of slavery a necessity in this country. 

As another piece of evidence tending to this same 
point: Quite recently in Virginia, a man — the 
owner of slaves — made a will providing that after 
his death certain of his slaves should have their free- 
dom if they should so choose, and go to Liberia, 
rather than remain in slavery. They chose to be 
liberated. But the persons to whom they would 
descend as property claimed them as slaves. A suit 
was instituted, which finally came to the Supreme 
Court of Virginia, and was therein decided against 
the slaves upon the ground that a negro cannot make 
a choice; that they had no legal power to choose, — 
could not perform the condition upon which their 
freedom depended. 

I do not mention this with any purpose of criticis- 
ing it, but to connect it with the arguments as afford- 
ing additional evidence of the change of sentiment 
upon this question of slavery in the direction of 
making it perpetual and national. I argue now as 



1 68 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

I did before, that there is such a tendency; and I 
am backed, not merely by the facts, but by the open 
confession in the slave States. 

And now as to the Judge's inference that because 
I wish to see slavery placed in the course of ultimate 
extinction,- — placed where our fathers original!}^ 
placed it, — I wish to annihilate the State Legisla- 
tures, to force cotton to grow upon the tops of the 
Green Mountains, to freeze ice in Florida, to cut 
lumber on the broad Illinois prairie, — that I am in 
favor of all these ridiculous and impossible things. 

It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to 
ask if, when Congress did have the fashion of re- 
stricting slavery from free territory; when courts 
did have the fashion of deciding that taking a slave 
into a free country made him free, — I say it is a 
sufficient answer to ask if any of this ridiculous 
nonsense about consolidation and uniformity did 
actually follow. Who heard of any such thing be- 
cause of the Ordinance of '87 ? because of the Missouri 
restriction ? because of the numerous court decisions 
of that character? 

Now, as to the Dred Scott decision; for upon that 
he makes his last point at me. He boldly takes 
ground in favor of that decision. 

This is one half the onslaught, and one third of the 
entire plan of the campaign. I am opposed to that 
decision in a certain sense, but not in the sense which 
he puts it. I say that in so far as it decided in favor 
of Dred Scott's master, and against Dred Scott and 
his family, I do not propose to disturb or resist the 
decision. 



Abraham Lincoln 169 

I never have proposed to do any such thing. I 
think that in respect for judicial authority my 
humble history would not suffer in comparison with 
that of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen 
conform his vote to that decision; the member of 
Congress, his; the President, his use of the veto 
power. He w^ould make it a rule of political action 
for the people and all the departments of the govern- 
ment. I would not. By resisting it as a political 
rule, I disturb no right of property, create no dis- 
order, excite no mobs. 

When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of 
last week, he made this same point upon me. On 
Saturday evening I rephed, and reminded him of a 
Supreme Court decision which he opposed for at 
least several years. Last night, at Bloomington, 
he took some notice of that reply, but entirely forgot 
to remember that part of it. 

He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to 
remember that I have turned the tables against him- 
self on that very point. I renew the effort to draw 
his attention to it. I wish to stand erect before the 
country, as well as Judge Douglas, on this question of 
judicial authority; and therefore I add something to 
the authority in favor of my own position. I wish 
to show that I am sustained by authority, in addi- 
tion to that heretofore presented. I do not expect 
to convince the Judge. It is part of the plan of his 
campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate grip. 
Even turn it upon him, — the sharp point against him, 
and gaff him through, — he will still cling to it till he 
can invent some new dodge to take the place of it. 



170 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

In public speaking it is tedious reading from docu- 
ments; but I must beg to indulge the practice to 
a limited extent. I shall read from a letter written 
by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the 
seventh volume of his correspondence, at page 177. 
It seems he had been presented by a gentleman of 
the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or period- 
ical, called the Republican, and he was writing in 
acknowledgment of the present, and noting some of 
its contents. After expressing the hope that the 
work will produce a favorable effect upon the minds 
of the young, he proceeds to say : 

" That it will have this tendency may be expected, and 
for that reason I feel an urgency to note what I deem an 
error in it, the more requiring notice as your opinion is 
strengthened by that of many others. You seem, in 
pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate 
arbiters of all constitutional questions, — a very dangerous 
doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the 
despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as 
other men, and not more so. They have, with others, 
the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege 
of their corps. Their maxim is, * Boni judicis est am- 
pliare jurisdictionem ' ; and their power is the more dan- 
gerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, 
as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. 
The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, 
knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the cor- 
ruptions of time and party, its members would become 
despots. It has more wisely made all the departments 
co-equal and co-sovereign with themselves." 

Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme 



Abraham Lincoln 171 

Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson holds, would 
reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy. 

Now, I have said no more than this, — in fact, 
never quite so much as this ; at least I am sustained 
b}^ Mr. Jefferson. 

Let us go a Httle further. You remember we once 
had a National Bank. Some one owed the bank a 
debt; he was sued, and sought to avoid payment on 
the ground that the bank was unconstitutional. 
The case w^ent to the Supreme Court, and therein it 
was decided that the bank was constitutional. The 
whole Democratic party revolted against that 
decision. General Jackson himself asserted that he, 
as President, w^ould not be bound to hold a National 
Bank to be constitutional, even though the court had 
decided it to be so. He fell in precisely with the 
view of Mr. Jefferson, and acted upon it under his 
official oath, in vetoing a charter for a National 
Bank. The declaration that Congress does not 
possess this constitutional power to charter a bank 
has gone into the Democratic platform, at their 
National Conventions, and was brought forward and 
reaffirmed in their last Convention at Cincinnati. 
They have contended for that declaration, in the 
very teeth of the Supreme Court, for more than a 
quarter of a century. In fact, they have reduced 
the decision to an absolute nullity. That decision, 
I repeat, is repudiated in the Cincinnati platform; 
and still, as if to show that effrontery can go no fur- 
ther, Judge Douglas vaunts in the very speeches in 
which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scott 
decision that he stands on the Cincinnati platform. 



172 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Now, I wish to know what the Judge can charge 
upon me, with respect to decisions of the Supreme 
Court, which does not he in all its length, breadth, 
and proportions at his own door. The plain truth 
is simply this: Judge Douglas is for Supreme Court 
decisions when he likes and against them when he 
does not like them. He is for the Dred Scott de- 
cision because it tends to nationalize slavery; be- 
cause it is part of the original combination for that 
object. It so happens, singularly enough, that I never 
stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court 
till this. On the contrary, I have no recollection 
that he was ever particularly in favor of one till this. 
He never was in favor of any nor opposed to any, till 
the present one, which helps to nationalize slavery. 

Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, free 
men everywhere, judge ye between him and me upon 
this issue. 

He says this Dred Scott case is a very small 
matter at most, — that it has no practical effect; 
that at best, or rather, I suppose, at worst, it is but 
an abstraction. I submit that the proposition that 
the thing which determines wh .ther a man is free or 
a slave is rather concrete than abstract. I think }^ou 
would conclude that it was, if your liberty depended 
upon it, and so would Judge Douglas, if his liberty 
depended upon it. But suppose it was on the 
question of spreading slavery over the new Terri- 
tories that he considers it as being merely an abstract 
matter, and one of no practical importance. How 
has the planting of slavery in new countries always 
been effected? It has now been decided that 



Abraham Lincoln 173 

slavery cannot be kept out of our new Territories by 
any legal means. In what do our new Territories 
now differ in this respect from the old Colonies when 
slavery was first planted within them? It was 
planted, as Mr. Clay once declared, and as history 
proves true, by individual men, in spite of the wishes 
of the people; the Mother Government refusing to 
prohibit it, and withholding from the people of the 
Colonies the authority to prohibit it for themselves. 
Mr. Clay says this was one of the great and just 
causes of complaint against Great Britain by the 
Colonies, and the best apology we can now make for 
having the institution amongst us. In that precise 
condition our Nebraska politicians have at last suc- 
ceeded in placing our own new Territories; the 
government will not prohibit slavery within them, 
nor allow the people to prohibit it. 

I defy any man to find any difference between 
the policy which originally planted slavery in these 
Colonies and that policy which now prevails in our 
new Territories. If it does not go into them, it is 
only because no individual wishes it to go. The 
Judge indulged himself doubtless to-day with the 
question as to what I am going to do with or about 
the Dred Scott decision. Well, Judge, will you 
please tell me what you did about the bank decision ? 
Will you not graciously allow us to do with the Dred 
Scott decision precisely as you did with the bank 
decision? You succeeded in breaking down the 
moral effect of that decision: did you find it neces- 
sary to amend the Constitution, or to set up a court 
of negroes in order to do it? 



174 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

There is one other point. Judge Douglas has a 
very affectionate leaning toward the Americans and 
Old Whigs. Last evening, in a sort of weeping tone, 
he described to us a death-bed scene. He had been 
called to the side of Mr. Clay, in his last moments, 
in order that the genius of ' ' popular sovereignty 
might duly descend from the dying man and settle 
upon him, the living and most worthy successor. 
He could do no less than promise that he would 
devote the remainder of his life to "popular sover- 
eignty"; and then the great statesman departs in 
peace. By this part of the "plan of the campaign" 
the Judge has evidently promised himself that tears 
shall be drawn down the cheeks of all Old Whigs, as 
large as half -grown apples. 

Mr. Webster, too, was mentioned; but it did not 
quite come to a death-bed scene as to him. It w^ould 
be amusing, if it were not disgusting, to see how 
quick these compromise-breakers administer on the 
political effects of their dead adversaries, trumping 
up claims never before heard of, and dividing the 
assets among themselves. If I should be found 
dead to-morrow morning, nothing but my insignif- 
icance could prevent a speech being made on my 
authority, before the end of next week. It so 
happens that in that "popular sovereignty" with 
which Mr. Clay was identified, the Missouri Com- 
promise was expressly reversed; and it was a little 
singular if Mr. Clay cast his mantle upon Judge 
Douglas on purpose to have that compromise 
repealed. 

Again, the Judge did not keep faith with Mr. Clay 



Abraham Lincoln 175 

when he first brought in his Nebraska Bill. He left 
the Missouri Compromise unrepealed, and in his 
report accompanying the bill he told the world he 
did it on purpose. The manes of Mr. Clay must 
have been in great agony till thirty days later, when 
"popular sovereignty" stood forth in all its glory. 

One more thing. Last night Judge Douglas tor- 
mented himself with horrors about my disposition to 
make negroes perfectly equal with white men in social 
and political relations. He did not stop to show that 
I have said any such thing, or that it legitimately 
follows from anything I have said, but he rushes on 
with his assertions. I adhere to the Declaration of 
Independence. If Judge Douglas and his friends 
are not willing to stand by it, let them come up and 
amend it. Let them make it read that all men are 
created equal except negroes. Let us have it 
decided whether the Declaration of Independence, 
in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thus amended. 
In his construction of the Declaration last year, he 
said it only meant that Americans in America were 
equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I 
pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes 
the Germans, the Irish, the Portuguese, and all the 
other people who have come among us since the 
Revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In 
his last speech he tells us it meant Europeans. 

I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to 
include the Russians in Asia; or does he mean to 
exclude that vast population from the principles 
of our Declaration of Independence? I expect ere 
long he will introduce another amendment to his 



176 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

definition. He is not at all particular. He is 
satisfied with anything which does not endanger the 
nationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white 
men down, but it must not lift negroes up. Who 
shall say, "I am the superior, and you are the 
inferior"? 

My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery 
may be misrepresented, but cannot be misunder- 
stood. I have said that I do not understand the De- 
claration to mean that all men were created equal in 
all respects. They are not our equal in color; but 
I suppose that it does mean to declare that all men 
are equal in some respects; they are equal in their 
right to "life, hberty, and the pursuit of happiness." 
Certainly the negro is not our equal in color, — 
perhaps not in many other respects ; still, in the right 
to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands 
have earned, he is the equal of every other man, 
white or black. In pointing out that more has been 
given you, you cannot be justified in taking away 
the little which has been given him. All I ask for 
the negro is that if you do not like him, let him 
alone. If God gave him but little, that little let 
him enjoy. 

When our government was established we had the 
institution of slavery among us. We were in a 
certain sense compelled to tolerate its existence. 
It was a sort of necessity. We had gone through 
our struggle and secured our own independence. 
The framers of the Constitution found the institu- 
tion of slavery amongst their own institutions at 
the time. They found that by an effort to eradicate 



Abraham Lincoln 177 

it they might lose much of what they had already 
gained. They were obliged to bow to the necessity. 
They gave power to Congress to abolish the slave 
trade at the end of twenty years. They also pro- 
hibited it in the Territories where it did not exist. 
They did what they could, and yielded to the neces- 
sity for the rest. I also yield to all which follows 
from that necessity. What I would miost desire 
would be the separation of the white and black races. 

One more point on this Springfield speech which 
Judge Douglas says he has read so carefully. I 
expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy 
to perpetuate and nationalize slavery. I did not 
profess to know it, nor do I now. I showed the part 
Judge Douglas had played in the string of facts con- 
stituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. 
I showed the parts played by others. 

I charged that the people had been deceived into 
carrying the last Presidential election, by the impres- 
sion that the people of the Territories might exclude 
slavery if they chose, when it was known in advance 
by the conspirators that the court was to decide that 
neither Congress nor the people could so exclude 
slavery. These charges are more distinctly made 
than anything else in the speech. 

Judge Douglas has carefully read and reread that 
speech. He has not, so far as I know, contradicted 
those charges. In the two speeches which I heard 
he certainly did not. On this own tacit admission, 
I renew that charge. I charge him with having 
been a party to that conspiracy and to that decep- 
tion for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery. 



178 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 



The following is the correspondence between the 
two rival candidates for the United States Senate : 

MR. LINCOLN TO MR. DOUGLAS. 

Chicago, III., July 24, 1858. 

Hon. S. a. Douglas: My dear Sir,— Will it be 
agreeable to you to make an arrangement for you 
and myself to divide time, and address the same 
audiences the present canvass? Mr. Judd, who will 
hand you this, is authorized to receive your answer; 
and, if agreeable to you, to enter into the terms of 
such arrangement. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



MR. DOUGLAS TO MR. LINCOLN. 

Chicago, July 24, 1858. 

Hon. a. Lincoln: Dear Sir, — Your note of this 
date, in which you inquire if it would be agreeable 
to me to make an arrangement to divide the time 
and address the same audiences during the present 
canvass, was handed me by Mr. Judd. Recent 
events have interposed difficulties in the way of 
such an arrangement. 

I went to Springfield last week for the purpose of 
conferring with the Democratic State Central Com- 
mittee upon the mode of conducting the canvass, 



Correspondence 1 79 

and with them, and under their advice, made a Ust 
of appointments covering the entire period until 
late in October. The people of the several localities 
have been notified of the times and places of the 
meetings. Those appointments have all been made 
for Democratic meetings, and arrangements have 
been made by which the Democratic candidates for 
Congress, for the Legislature, and other offices, will 
be present and address the people. It is evident, 
therefore, that these various candidates, in connec- 
tion with myself, will occupy the whole time of the 
day and evening, and leave no opportunity for 
other speeches. 

Besides, there is another consideration which 
should be kept in mind. It has been suggested 
recently that an arrangement had been made to 
bring out a third candidate for the United States 
Senate, who, with yourself, should canvass the State 
in opposition to me, with no other purpose than to 
insure my defeat, by dividing the Democratic party 
for your benefit. If I should make this arrange- 
ment with you, it is more than probable that this 
other candidate, who has a common object with you, 
would desire to become a party to it, and claim the 
right to speak from the same stand; so that he and 
you, in concert, might be able to take the opening 
and closing speech in every case. 

I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise, if 
it was your original intention to invite such an 
arrangement, that you should have waited until after 
I had made my appointments, inasmuch as we were 
both here in Chicago together for several days after 



i8o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

my arrival, and again at Bloomington, Atlanta, 
Lincoln, and Springfield, where it was well known I 
went for the purpose of consulting with the State 
Central Committee, and agreeing upon the plan of 
the campaign. 

While, under these circumstances, I do not feel 
at liberty to make any arrangements which would 
deprive the Democratic candidates for Congress, 
State offices, and the Legislature from participating 
in the discussion at the various meetings designated 
by the Democratic State Central Committee, I will, 
in order to accommodate you as far as it is in my 
power to do so, take the responsibility of making an 
arrangement with you for a discussion between us 
at one prominent point in each Congressional Dis- 
trict in the State, except the Second and Sixth dis- 
tricts, where we have both spoken, and in each of 
which cases you had the concluding speech. If 
agreeable to you, I will indicate the following places 
as those most suitable in the several Congressional 
districts at which we should speak, to wit : Freeport, 
Ottawa, Galesburg, Quincy, Alton, Jonesboro, and 
Charleston. I will confer with you at the earliest 
convenient opportunity in regard to the mode of 
conducting the debate, the times of meeting at the 
several places, subject to the condition that where 
appointments have already been made by the Demo- 
cratic State Central Committee at any of those 
places, I must insist upon you meeting me at the 
times specified. 

Very respectfully, your most obedient servant, 

S. A. Douglas. 



Correspondence i8i 

MR. LINCOLN TO MR. DOUGLAS. 

Springfield, July 29, 1858. 

Hon. S. a. Douglas : Dear Sir, — Yours of the 24th 
in relation to an arrangement to divide time, and 
address the same audiences, is received; and, in 
apology for not sooner replying, allow me to say, 
that when I sat by you at dinner yesterday, I was 
not aware that you had answered my note, nor, 
certainly, that my own note had been presented to 
you. An hour after, I saw a copy of your answer in 
the Chicago Times, and reaching home, I found the 
original awaiting me. Protesting that your insin- 
uations of attempted unfairness on my part are 
unjust, and with the hope that you did not very 
considerately make them, I proceed to reply. To 
your statement that " I l has been suggested, recently, 
that an arrangement had been made to bring out a 
third candidate for the United States Senate, who, 
with yourself, should canvass the state in opposition 
to me," etc., I can only say, that such suggestion 
must have been made by yourself, for certainly none 
such has been made by or to me, or otherwise, to my 
knowledge. Surel}^ you did not deliberately con- 
clude, as you insinuate, that I was expecting to draw 
you into an arrangement of terms, to be agreed on 
by yourself, by which a third candidate and myself, 
"in concert, might be able to take the opening and 
closing speech in every case." 

As to your surprise that I did not sooner make 
the proposal to divide time with you, I can only say, 
I made it as soon as I resolved to make it. I did 



i82 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

not know but that such proposal would come from 
you; I waited, respectfully, to see. It may have 
been well known to you that you went to Springfield 
for the purpose of agreeing on the plan of campaign ; 
but it was not so known to me. When your appoint- 
ments were announced in the papers, extending only 
to the 2ist of August, I for the first time considered 
it certain that you would make no proposal to me, 
and then resolved that, if my friends concurred, 
I would make one to you. As soon thereafter as I 
could see and consult with friends satisfactorily, I 
did make the proposal. It did not occur to me that 
the proposed arrangement could derange your plans 
after the latest of your appointments already made. 
After that, there was, before the election, largely 
over two months of clear time. 

For you to say that we have already spoken at 
Chicago and Springfield, and that on both occasions 
I had the concluding speech, is hardly a fair state- 
ment. The truth rather is this: At Chicago, July 
9th, you made a carefully prepared conclusion on 
my speech of June i6th. Twenty-four hours after, I 
made a hasty conclusion on yours of the 9th. You 
had six days to prepare, and concluded on me again 
at Bloomington on the i6th. Twenty-four hours 
after, I concluded again on you at Springfield. In 
the mean time, you had made another conclusion on 
me at Springfield, which I did not hear, and of the 
contents of which I knew nothing when I spoke ; so 
that your speech made in daylight, and mine at night, 
of the 1 7th, at Springfield, were both made in perfect 
independence of each other. The dates of making 



Correspondence 183 

all these speeches will show, I think, that in the 
matter of time for preparation the advantage has 
all been on your side, and that none of the external 
circumstances have stood to my advantage. 

I agree to an arrangement for us to speak at the 
seven places you have named, and at your own times, 
provided you name the times at once, so that I as 
well as you can have to myself the time not covered 
by the arrangement. As to the other details, I wish 
perfect reciprocity and no more. I wish as much 
time as you, and that conclusions shall alternate. 
That is all. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 

P. S. — As matters now stand, I shall be at no more 
of your exclusive meetings, and for about a week 
from to-day a letter from you will reach me at 
Springfield. A. L. 



MR. DOUGLAS TO MR. LINCOLN. 

Bement, Piatt Co., III., July 30, 1858. 

Dear Sir, — Your letter dated yesterday, accepting 
my proposition for a joint discussion at one promi- 
nent point in each Congressional District, as stated 
in my previous letter, was received this morning. 

The times and places designated are as follows: 

Ottawa, La Salle County . August 21st, 1858, 
Freeport, Stephenson County " 27th, " 
Jonesboro, Union County . September 15th, " 
Charleston, Coles County . " i8th, '* 



1 84 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Galesburgh, Knox County . October 7th, 1858. 
Quincy, Adams County . . " 13th, " 

Alton, Madison County . . " 15th, " 

I agree to your suggestion that we shall altematel}'" 
open and close the discussion. I will speak at 
Ottawa one hour, you can reply, occupying an hour 
and a half, and I will then follow for half an hour. 
At Freeport, you shall open the discussion and speak 
one hour; I will follow for an hour and a half, and 
you can then reply for half an hour. We will 
alternate in like manner in each successive place. 
Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

S. A. Douglas. 

Hon. a. Lincoln, Springfield, 111. 



MR. LINCOLN TO MR. DOUGLAS. 

Springfield, July 31, 1858. 

Hon. S. a. Douglas: Dear Sir, — Yours of 3^ester- 
day, naming places, times, and terms for joint dis- 
cussions between us, was received this morning. 
Although, by the terms, as you propose, you take 
four openings and closes, to my three, I accede, and 
thus close the arrangement. I direct this to you at 
Hillsboro, and shall try to have both your letter and 
this appear in the Journal and Register of Monday 
morning. 

Your obedient servant, 

A. Lincoln. 



FIRST JOINT DEBATE, AT OTTAWA, 

August 21, 1858. 

MR. Douglas's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you 
to-day for the purpose of discussing the leading 
political topics which now agitate the public mind. 
By an arrangement between Mr. Lincoln and myself 
we are present here to-day for the purpose of having 
a joint d scussion, as the representatives of the two 
great political parties of the State and Union, upon 
the principles in issue between those parties; and 
this vast concourse of people shows the deep feeling 
which pervades the public mind in regard to the 
questions dividing us. 

Prior to 1854 this country was divided into two 
great political parties, known as the Whig and 
Democratic parties. Both were national and patri- 
otic, advocating principles that were universal in 
their application. An old line Whig could proclaim 
his principles in Louisiana and Massachusetts alike. 
Whig principles had no boundary sectional line; 
they were not limited by the Ohio River, nor by the 
Potomac, nor by the line of the free and slave 
States, but applied and were proclaimed wherever 
the Constitution ruled or the American flag waved 
over the American soil. So it was, and so it is with 
the great Democratic party, which, from the days of 

185 



i86 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Jefferson until this period, has proven itself to be the 
historic party of this nation. While the Whig and 
Democratic parties differed in regard to a bank, the 
tariff, distribution, the specie circular, and the sub- 
treasury, they agreed on the great slavery question 
which now agitates the Union. I say that the Whig 
party and the Democratic party agreed on this 
slavery question, while they differed on those matters 
of expediency to which I have referred. The Whig 
party and the Democratic party jointly adopted the 
Compromise measures of 1850 as the basis of a proper 
and just solution of this slavery question in all its 
forms. Clay was the great leader, with Webster on 
his right and Cass on his left, and sustained by the 
patriots in the Whig and Democratic ranks who had 
devised and enacted the Compromise measures of 
1850. 

In 185 1 the Whig party and the Democratic party 
united in Illinois in adopting resolutions indorsing 
and approving the principles of the Compromise 
measures of 1850, as the proper adjustment of that 
question. In 1852, when the Whig party assembled 
in convention at Baltimore for the purpose of nomi- 
nating a candidate for the presidency, the first thing 
it did was to declare the Compromise measures of 
1850, in substance and in principle, a suitable adjust- 
ment of that question. [Here the speaker was in- 
ten'upted by loud and long-continued applause.] 
My friends, silence will be more acceptable to me in 
the discussion of these questions than applause. I 
desire to address myself to your judgment, your 
understanding, and your consciences, and not to 



Stephen A. Douglas 187 

your passions or your enthusiasm. When the 
Democratic Convention assembled in Baltimore in 
the same year, for the purpose of nominating a 
Democratic candidate for the presidency, it also 
adopted the Compromise measures of 1850 as the 
basis of Democratic action. Thus you see that up 
to 1 853-' 54, the Whig party and the Democratic 
party both stood on the same platform with regard 
to the slavery question. That platform was the 
right of the people of each State and each Territory 
to decide their local and domestic institutions for 
themselves, subject only to the Federal Constitution. 
During the session of Congress of i853-'54, I in- 
troduced into the Senate of the United States a bill 
to organize the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska 
on that principle which had been adopted in the 
Compromise measures of 1850, approved by the 
Whig party and the Democratic party in Illinois in 
1 85 1, and indorsed by the Whig party and the Dem- 
ocratic party in National Convention in 1852. In 
order that there might be no misunderstanding in 
relation to the principle involved in the Kansas and 
Nebraska Bill, I put forth the true intent and mean- 
ing of this Act in these words: " It is the true intent 
and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into 
any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but 
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Federal Constitution." Thus you 
see that up to 1854, when the Kansas and Nebraska 
Bill was brought into Congress for the purpose of 
carrying out the principles which both parties had 



i88 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

up to that time indorsed and approved, there had 
been no division in this country in regard to that 
principle except the opposition of the Abolitionists. 
In the House of Representatives of the Illinois Legis- 
lature, upon a resolution asserting that principle, 
every Whig and every Democrat in the House voted 
in the affirmative, and only four men voted against 
it, and those four were old line Abolitionists. 

In 1854, Mr. Abraham Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull 
entered into an arrangement, one with the other, and 
each with his respective friends, to dissolve the old 
Whig party on the one hand, and to dissolve the old 
Democratic party on the other, and to connect the 
members of both into an Abolition party, under the 
name and disguise of a Republican party. The 
terms of that arrangement between Mr. Lincoln. and 
Mr. Trumbull have been published to the world by 
Mr. Lincoln's special friend James H. Matheny, 
Esq., and they were, that Lincoln should have 
Shields's place in the United States Senate, which 
was then about to become vacant, and that Trum- 
bull should have my seat when my term expired. 
Lincoln went to work to Abolitionize the old Whig 
party all over the State, pretending that he was then 
as good a Whig as ever ; and Trumbull went to work 
in his part of the State preaching Abolitionism in its 
milder and lighter form, and trying to Abolitionize 
the Democratic party, and bring old Democrats 
handcuffed and bound hand and foot into the 
Abolition camp. In pursuance of the arrangement, 
the parties met at Springfield in October, 1854, 
and proclaimed their new platform. Lincoln was to 



'Stephen A. Douglas 189 

bring into the AboHtion camp the old line Whigs, 
and transfer them over to Giddings, Chase, Fred 
Douglass, and Parson Lovejoy, who were ready to 
receive them and christen them in their new faith. 
They laid down on that occasion a platform for their 
new Republican party, which was to be thus con- 
structed. I have the resolutions of their State Con- 
vention then held, which was the first mass State 
Convention ever held in Illinois by the Black Repub- 
lican party, and I now hold them in my hands, and 
will read a part of them, and cause the others to be 
printed. Here are the most important and material 
resolutions of this Abolition platform: 

" I. Resolved, That we believe this truth to be self- 
evident, that when parties become subversive of the ends 
for which they are established, or incapable of restoring 
the government to the true principles of the Constitu- 
tion, it is the right and duty of the people to dissolve the 
political bands by which they may have been connected 
therewith, and to organize new parties, upon such prin- 
ciples and with such views as the circumstances and 
exigencies of the nation may demand. 

" 2 . Resolved, That the times imperatively demand 
the reorganization of parties, and, repudiating all pre- 
vious party attachments, names and predilections, we 
unite ourselves in defence of the liberty and Constitution 
of the country, and will hereafter co-operate as the Re- 
publican party, pledged to the -accomplishment of the 
following purposes: To bring the administration of the 
government back to the control of first principles; to 
restore Nebraska and Kansas to the position of free 
Territories ; that, as the Constitution of the United States 
vests in the States, and not in Congress, the power to 



190 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

legislate for the extradition of fugitives from labor, to re- 
peal and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law; to 
restrict slavery to those States in which it exists; to 
prohibit the admission of any more Slave States into the 
Union; to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; 
to exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the 
General Government has exclusive jurisdiction; and to 
resist the acquirement of any more Territories, unless the 
practice of slavery therein forever shall have been pro- 
hibited. 

"3. Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles 
we will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall 
seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we 
will support no man for office, under the General or State 
Government, who is not positively and fully committed 
to the support of these principles, and whose personal 
character and conduct is not a guarantee that he is reli- 
able, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance 
and ties." 

Now, gentlemen, your Black Republicans have 
cheered every one of those propositions, and yet I 
venture to say that you cannot get Mr. Lincoln to 
come out and say that he is now in favor of each 
one of them. That these propositions, one and all, 
constitute the platform of the Black Republican 
party of this day, I have no doubt; and when you 
were not aware for what purpose I was reading 
them, your Black Republicans cheered them as good 
Black Republican doctrines. My object in reading 
these resolutions was to put the question to Abraham 
Lincoln this day, whether he now stands and will 
stand by each article in that creed and carry it out. 
I desire to know whether Mr. Lincoln to-day stands, 



Stephen A. Douglas 191 

as he did in 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal 
of the Fugitive Slave law, I desire him to answer 
whether he stands pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, 
against the admission of any more slave States into 
the Union, even if the people want them. I want to 
know whether he stands pledged against the admis- 
sion of a new State into the Union with such a con- 
stitution as the people of that State may see fit to 
make. I want to know whether he stands to-day 
pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia. I desire him to answer whether he 
stands pledged to the prohibition of the slave trade 
between the different States. I desire to know 
whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery in all 
the Territories of the United States, north as well as 
south of the Missouri Compromise line. I desire him 
to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition 
of any more territory, unless slavery is prohibited 
therein. I want his answer to these questions. 
Your affirmative cheers in favor of this Abolition 
platform is not satisfactory. I ask Abraham Lin- 
coln to answer these questions, in order that, when 
I trot him down to lower Egypt, I may put the same 
questions to him. My principles are the same every- 
where. I can proclaim them alike in the North, 
the South, the East, and the West. My principles 
will apply wherever the Constitution prevails and 
the American flag waves. I desire to know whether 
Mr. Lincoln's principles will bear transplanting from 
Ottawa to Jonesboro ? I put these questions to him 
to-day distinctly and ask an answer. I have a right 
to an answer, for I quote from the platform of the 



192 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Republican party, made by himself and others at the 
time that party was formed, and the bargain made 
by Lincoln to dissolve and kill the old Whig party, 
and transfer its members, bound hand and foot, to 
the Abolition party, under the direction of Giddings 
and Fred Douglass. In the remarks I have made on 
this platform, and the position of Mr. Lincoln upon 
it, I mean nothing personally disrespectful or unkind 
to that gentleman. I have known him for nearly 
twenty-five years. There were man 3^ points of sym- 
pathy between us when we first got acquainted. We 
were both comparatively boys, and both struggling 
with poverty in a strange land. I was a school- 
teacher in the town of Winchester, and he a flourish- 
ing grocery-keeper in the town of Salem. He was 
more successful in his occupation than I was in mine, 
and hence more fortunate in this world's goods. 
Lincoln is one of those peculiar men who perform 
with admirable skill everything which they under- 
take. I made as good a school-teacher as I could, 
and when a cabinet-maker I made a good bedstead 
and tables, although my old boss said I succeeded 
better with bureaus and secretaries than anything 
else; but I believe that Lincoln was always more 
successful in business than I , for his business enabled 
him to get into the Legislature. I met him there, 
however, and had a sympathy with him, because of 
the up-hill struggle we both had in life. He was 
then just as good at telling an anecdote as now. He 
could beat any of the boys wrestling, or running a 
foot-race, in pitching quoits or tossing a copper; 
could ruin more liquor than all the boys of the town 



Stephen A. Douglas 193 

together; and the dignity and impartiaHty with 
which he presided at a horse-race or fist-fight 
excited the admiration and won the praise of ever}^- 
body that was present and participated. I sym- 
pathized with him because he was strugghng with 
difficulties and so was I. Mr. Lincoln served with 
me in the Legislature in 1836, when we both retired, 
and he subsided, or became submerged, and he was 
lost sight of as a public man for some years. In 
1846, when Wilmot introduced his celebrated pro- 
viso, and the Abolition tornado swept over the 
country, Lincoln again turned up as a member of 
Congress from the Sangamon district. I was then 
in the Senate of the United States, and was glad to 
welcome my old friend and companion. Whilst in 
Congress, he distinguished himself by his opposition 
to the Mexican war, taking the side of the common 
enemy against his own country; and when he 
returned home he found that the indignation of the 
people followed him everywhere, and he was again 
submerged, or obliged to retire into private life, 
forgotten by his former friends. He came up again 
in 1854, just in time to make this Abolition or Black 
Republican platform, in company with Giddings, 
Lovejoy, Chase, and Fred Douglass, for the Repub- 
lican party to stand upon. Trumbull, too, was one 
of our own contemporaries. He was born and raised 
in old Connecticut, was bred a Federalist, but, re- 
moving to Georgia, turned Nullifier when Nullifica- 
tion was popular, and as soon as he disposed of his 
clocks and wound up his business, migrated to 
Illinois, turned politician and lawyer here, and made 



194 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

his appearance in 1841 as a member of the Legisla- 
ture. He became noted as the author of the scheme 
to repudiate a large portion of the State debt of 
Illinois, which, if successful, would have brought 
infamy and disgrace upon the fair escutcheon of our 
glorious State. The odium attached to that measure 
consigned him to oblivion for a time. I helped to 
do it. I walked into a public meeting in the hall 
of the House of Representatives, and replied to his 
repudiating speeches, and resolutions were carried 
over his head denouncing repudiation, and asserting 
the moral and legal obligation of Illinois to pay 
every dollar of the debt she owed, and every bond 
that bore her seal. Trumbull's malignity has fol- 
lowed me since I thus defeated his infamous 
scheme. 

These two men having formed this combination to 
Abolitionize the old Whig party and the old Demo- 
cratic party, and put themselves into the Senate of 
the United States, in pursuance of their bargain, 
are now carrying out that arrangement. Matheny 
states that Trumbull broke faith; that the bargain 
was that Lincoln should be the Senator in Shields's 
place, and Trumbull was to wait for mine; and the 
story goes that Trumbull cheated Lincoln: having 
control of four or five Abolitionized Democrats who 
were holding over in the Senate, he would not let 
them vote for Lincoln, and which obliged the rest of 
the Abolitionists to support him in order to secure 
an Abolition Senator. There are a number of 
authorities for the truth of this besides Matheny, 
and I suppose that even Mr. Lincoln will not deny it. 



Stephen A. Douglas 195 

Mr. Lincoln demands that he shall have the place 
intended for Trumbull, as Trumbull cheated him and 
got his, and Trumbull is stumping the State traducing 
me for the purpose of securing the position for Lin- 
coln, in order to quiet him. It was in consequence 
of this arrangement that the Republican Convention 
was empanelled to instruct for Lincoln and nobody 
else, and it was on this account that they passed 
resolutions that he was their first, their last, and 
their only choice. Archy Williams was nowhere, 
Browning was nobody, Wentworth was not to be 
considered; they had no man in the Republican 
party for the place except Lincoln, for the reason 
that he demanded that they should carry out the 
arrangement. 

Having formed this new party for the benefit of 
deserters from Whiggery, and deserters from Democ- 
racy, and having laid down the Abolition platform 
which I have read, Lincoln now takes his stand and 
proclaims his Abolition doctrines. Let me read a 
part of them. In his speech at Springfield to the con- 
vention which nominated him for the Senate, he said : 

" In my opinion it will not cease until a crisis shall have 
been reached and passed. ' A house divided against it- 
self cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot 
endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not 
expect the Union to be dissolved, — I do not expect the 
house to fall ; hut I do expect it will cease to he divided. It 
will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the 
opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and 
place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that 
it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates 



196 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all 
the States, — old as well as new, North as well as South." 

["Good," "Good," and cheers.] 

I am delighted to hear you Black Republicans say 
"good." I have no doubt that doctrine expresses 
your sentiments, and I will prove to you now, if you 
will listen to me, that it is revolutionary, and de- 
structive of the existence of this government. Mr. 
Lincoln, in the extract from which I have read, says 
that this government cannot endure permanently 
in the same condition in which it was made by its 
framers, — divided into free and slave States. He 
says that it has existed for about sevent}^ years thus 
divided, and yet he tells you that it cannot endure 
permanently on the same principles and in the same 
relative condition in which our fathers made it. 
Why can it not exist divided into free and slave 
States? Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, 
Hamilton, Jay, and the great men of that day, made 
this government divided into free and slave States, 
and left each State perfectly free to do as it pleased 
on the subject of slavery. Why .an it not exist on 
the same principles on which ur father made it? 
They knew when they framed the Constitution that 
in a country as wide and broad as this, with such a 
variety of climate, production, and interest, the peo- 
ple necessarily required different laws and institu- 
tions in different localities. They knew that the 
laws and regulations which would suit the granite 
hills of New Hampshire would be unsuited to the 
rice plantations of South Carolina, and they there- 



Stephen A. Douglas 197 

fore provided that each State should retain its own 
Legislature and its own sovereignty, with the full 
and complete power to do as it pleased within its own 
limits, in all that was local and not national. One 
of the reserved rights of the States was the right to 
regulate the relations between master and servant 
on the slavery question. At the time the Constitu- 
tion was framed, there were thirteen States in the 
Union, twelve of which were slaveholding States and 
one a free State. Suppose this doctrine of uni- 
formity preached by Mr. Lincoln, that the States 
should all ' e free or all be slave, had prevailed, and 
what would have been the result? Of course, the 
twelve slaveholding States would have overruled 
the onf^ free State, and slaver}^ would have been 
fastened by a constitutional provision on every inch 
of the American Republic, instead of being left, as 
our fathers wisely left it, to each State to decide for 
itself. Here I assert that uniformity in the local 
laws and institutions of the different States is neither 
possible nor desirable. If uniformity had been 
adopted when the government was established, it 
must inevitably have been the uniformity of slavery 
everywhere, or else the uniformity of negro citizen- 
ship and negro equality ever3^where. 

We are told b}' Lincoln that he is utterly opposed 
to the Dred Scott decision, and will not submit to it, 
for the reason that he says it deprive the negro of 
the rights and privileges -^f citizenship. That is the 
first and main reason which he assigns for his warfare 
on the Supreme Court of the United States and its 
decision. I ask you, are you in favor of conferring 



198 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

upon the negro the rights and privileges of citizen- 
ship ? Do you desire to strike out of our State Con- 
stitution that clause which keeps slaves and free 
negroes out of the State, and allow the free negroes 
to flow in, and cover your prairies with black settle- 
ments? Do you desire to turn this beautiful State 
into a free negro colony, in order that when Missouri 
abolishes slavery she can send one hundred thousand 
emancipated slaves into Illinois, to become citizens 
and voters, on an equality with yourselves? If you 
desire negro citizenship, if you desire to allow them 
to come into the State and settle with the white man, 
if you desire them to vote on an equality with your- 
selves, and to make them eligible to office, to serve 
on juries, and to adjudge your rights, then support 
Mr. Lincoln and the Black Republican party, who 
are in favor of the citizenship of the negro. For one, 
I am opposed to negrr citizenship in any and every 
form, I believe this government was made on the 
white basis. I believe it was made by white men, 
for the benefit of white men and their posterity 
forever, and I am in favor of confining citizenship 
to white men, men of European birth and descent, 
instead of conferring it upon negroes, Indians, and 
other inferior races. 

Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all 
the little Abolition orators, who go around and lec- 
ture in the basements of schools and churches, reads 
from the Declaration of Independence that all men 
were created equal, and then asks, How can you de- 
prive a negro of that equality which God and the 
Declaration of Independence award to him? He 



Stephen A. Douglas 199 

and they maintain that negro equality is guaranteed 
by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the 
Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of 
course they have a right to do so, and so vote. I do 
not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that 
the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother, 
but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as 
my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, 
or any kin to me whatever. Lincoln has evidently 
learned by heart Parson Lovejoy's catechism. He 
can repeat it as well as Farnsworth, and he is worthy 
of a medal from Father Giddings and Fred Douglass 
for his Abolitionism. He holds that the negro was 
born his equal and yours, and that he was endowed 
with equality by the Almighty, and that no human 
law can deprive him of these rights, which were 
guaranteed to him by the Supreme Ruler of the 
Universe. Now I do not believe that the Almighty 
ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white 
man. If He did, He has been a long time demon- 
strating the fact. For thousands of years the negro 
has been a race upon the earth, and during all that 
time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has 
wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the 
race which he has there met. He belongs to an 
inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior 
position. I do not hold that because the negro is our 
inferior that therefore he ought to be a slave. By no 
means can such a conclusion be drawn from what I 
have said. On the contrary, I hold that humanity 
and Christianity both require that the negro shall 
have and enjoy every right, every privilege, and 



200 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

every immunity consistent with the safety of the 
society in which he lives. On that point, I presume, 
there can be no diversity of opinion. You and I 
are bound to extend to our inferior and dependent 
beings every right, every privilege, every facility and 
immunity consistent with the public good. 

The question then arises, What rights and privi- 
leges are consistent with the public good ? This is a 
question which each State and each Territory must 
decide for itself. Illinois has decided it for herself. 
We have provided that the negro shall not be a slave 
and we have also provided that he shall not be a 
citizen, but protect him in his civil rights, in his life, 
his person and his property, only depriving him of all 
political rights whatsoever, and refusing to put him 
on an equality with the white man. That policy of 
Illinois is satisfactory to the Democratic party and 
to me ; and if it were to the Republicans, there would 
then be no question upon the subject. But the 
Republicans say that he ought to be made a citizen, 
and when he becomes a citizen he becomes your 
equal, with all your rights and privileges. They 
assert the Dred Scott decision to be monstrous 
because it denies that the negro is or can be a citizen 
under the Constitution. Now, I hold that Illinois 
had a right to abolish and prohibit slavery as she did, 
and I hold that Kentucky has the same right to con- 
tinue and protect slavery that Illinois had to abolish 
it. I hold that New York had as much right to 
abolish slavery as Virginia has to continue it, and that 
each and every State of this Union is a sovereign 
power, with the right to do as it pleases upon this 



Stephen A. Douglas 201 

question of slavery, and upon all its domestic institu- 
tions. Slavery is not the only question which comes 
up in this controversy. There is a far more im- 
portant one to you, and that is, — What shall be done 
with the free negro? We have settled the slavery 
question as far as we are concerned; we have pro- 
hibited it in Illinois forever; and in doing so, I think 
we have done wisely, and there is no man in the 
State who would be more strenuous in his opposition 
to the introduction of slavery than I would. But 
when we settled it for ourselves, we exhausted all 
our power over that subject. We have done our 
whole duty, and can do no more. We must leave 
each and every other State to decide for itself the 
same question. In relation to the policy to be pur- 
sued toward the free negroes, we have said that they 
shall not vote; whilst Maine, on the other hand, has 
said that they shall vote. Maine is a sovereign 
State, and has the power to regulate the qualifica- 
tions of voters within her limits. I would never 
consent to confer the right of voting and of citizen- 
ship upon a negro ; but still I am not going to quarrel 
with Maine for differing from me in opinion. Let 
Maine take care of her own negroes, and fix the 
qualifications of her own voters to suit herself, with- 
out interfering with Illinois, and Illinois will not 
interfere with Maine. So with the State of New 
York. She allows the negro to vote, provided he 
owns two hundred and fifty dollars' worth of property 
but not otherwise. While I would not make any 
distinction whatever between a negro who held prop- 
erty and one who did not, yet if the sovereign State 



202 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

of New York chooses to make that distinction, it is 
her business and not mine, and I will not quarrel 
with her for it. She can do as she pleases on this 
question if she minds her own business, and we will 
do the same thing. Now, my friends, if we will only 
act conscientiously and rigidly upon this great 
principle of popular sovereignty, which guarantees 
to each State and Territory the right to do as it 
pleases on all things, local and domestic, instead of 
Congress interfering, we will continue at peace one 
with another. Why should Illinois be at war with 
Missouri, or Kentucky with Ohio, or Virginia with 
New York, merely because their institutions differ? 
Our fathers intended that our institutions should 
differ. They knew that the North and the South, 
having different climates, productions, and interests, 
required different institutions. This doctrine of Mr. 
Lincoln, of uniformity among the institutions of the 
different States, is.a new doctrine, never dreamed of 
by Washington, Madison, or the framers of this 
government. Mr. Lincoln and the Republican party 
set themselves up as wiser than these men who made 
this government, which has flourished for seventy 
years under the principle of popular sovereignty, 
recognizing the right of each State to do as it pleased. 
Under that principle, we have grown from a nation 
of three or four millions to a nation of about thirty 
millions of people; we have crossed the Alleghany 
Mountains and filled up the whole Northwest, turn- 
ing the prairie into a garden, and building up 
churches and schools, thus spreading civilization and 
Christianity where before there was nothing but 



Abraham Lincoln 203 

savage barbarism. Under that principle we have 
become, from a feeble nation, the most powerful on 
the face of the earth ; and if we only adhere to that 
principle, we can go forward increasing in territory, 
in power, in strength, and in glory until the Repub- 
lic of America shall be the North Star that shall guide 
the friends of freedom throughout the civilized world. 
And why can we not adhere to the great principle of 
self-government, upon which our institutions were 
originally based? I believe that this new doctrine 
preached by Mr. Lincoln and his party will dissolve 
the Union if it succeeds. They are trying to array 
all the Northern States in one body against the South, 
to excite a sectional war between the free States and 
the slave States, in order that the one or the other 
may be driven to the wall. 

I am told that my time is out. Mr. Lincoln will 
now address you for an hour and a half, and I will 
then occupy an half hour in replying to him. 



MR. Lincoln's reply. 

My Fellow-Citizens: When a man hears him- 
self somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him, — 
at least, I find it so with myself; but when mis- 
representation becomes very gross and palpable, it is 
more apt to amuse him. The first thing I see fit to 
notice is the fact that Judge Douglas alleges, after 
running through the history of the gld Democratic 
and the old Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and 
myself made an arrangement in 1854, by which I 
was to have the place of General Shields in the 
United States Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to 



204 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have 
to say upon that subject is that I think no man — 
not even Judge Douglas — can prove it, because it is 
not true. I have no doubt he is ''conscientious'' in 
saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such 
a length of time to read, as being the platform of the 
Republican party in 1854, I say I never had any- 
thing to do with them, and I think Trumbull never 
had. Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us 
ever did have anything to do with them. I believe 
this is true about those resolutions : There was a call 
for a convention to form a Republican party at 
Springfield, and I think that my friend Mr. Lovejoy, 
who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it. I 
think this is true, and I think if he will remember 
accurately he will be able to recollect that he tried 
to get me into it, and I would not go in. I believe it 
is also true that I went away from Springfield when 
the convention was in session, to attend court in 
Tazewell County. It is true they did place my name, 
though without authority, upon the committee, and 
afterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the 
committee ; but I refused to do so, and I never had 
anything to do with that organization. This is the 
plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions. 

Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of 
Trumbull bargaining to sell out the old Democratic 
party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out the old Whig 
party, I have the means of knowing about that: 
Judge Douglas cannot have; and I know there is 
no substance to it whatever. Yet I have no doubt 
he is ''conscientious'' about it. I know that after 



Abraham Lincoln 205 

Mr. Lovejoy got into the Legislature that winter, he 
complained of me that I had told all the old Whigs of 
his district that the old Whig party was good enough 
for them, and some of them voted against him be- 
cause I told them so. Now, I have no means of 
totally disproving such charges as this which the 
Judge makes. A man cannot prove a negative; 
but he has a right to claim that when a man makes 
an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to 
show the truth of what he says. I certainly cannot 
introduce testimony to show the negative about 
things, but I have a right to claim that if a man 
says he knows a thing, then he must show how he 
knows it. I always have a right to claim this, and 
it is not satisfactory to me that he may be "con- 
scientious" on the subject. 

Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such 
things; but in regard to that general Abolition tilt 
that Judge Douglas makes, when he says that I was 
engaged at that time in selling out and Abolitioniz- 
ing the old Whig party, I hope you will permit me 
to read a part of a printed speech that I made then 
at Peoria, which will show altogether a different view 
of the position I took in that contest of 1854. 

Voice: "Put on your specs." 

Mr. Lincoln: Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so; I 
am no longer a young man. 

" This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.* The 

' This extract from Mr. Lincoln's Peoria speech of 1854 was read by 
him in the Ottawa debate, but was not reported fully or accurately 
in either the Times or Press and Tribune. It is inserted now as neces- 
sary to a complete report of the debate. 



2o6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

foregoing history may not be precisely accurate in every 
particular, but I am sure it is sufficiently so for all the 
uses I shall attempt to make of it, and in it we have 
before us the chief materials enabling us to correctly 
judge whether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is 
right or wrong. 

" I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong — 
wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and 
Nebraska, and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing 
it to spread to every other part of the wide world where 
men can be found inclined to take it. 

" This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert 
real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I 
hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery 
itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican ex- 
ample of its just influence in the world, — enables the 
enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us 
as hypocrites ; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt 
our sincerity, and especially because it forces so man}^ 
really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with 
the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, — criti- 
cising the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that 
there is no right principle of action but self-interest. 

" Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no preju- 
dice against the Southern people. They are just what 
we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now 
exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it 
did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it 
up. This I believe of the masses north and south. 
Dv^ubtless there are individuals on both sides who would 
not hold slaves under any circumstances ; and others who 
would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of 
existence. We know that some Southern men do free 
their slaves, go north, and become tip-top Abolitionists; 



Abraham Lincoln 207 

while some Northern ones go south and become most 
cruel slave-masters. 

"When Southern people tell us they are no more re- 
sponsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge 
the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and 
that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in any satisfactory 
way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I will 
not blame them for not doing what I should not know 
how to do myself. If all earthly power were given me, I 
should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. 
My first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send 
them to Liberia, — to their own native land. But a mo- 
ment's reflection would convince me that whatever of 
high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this, in 
the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. If they 
were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the 
next ten days ; and there are not surplus shipping and 
surplus money enough in the world to carry them there 
in many times ten days. What then? Free them all 
and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite cer- 
tain that this betters their condition? I think I would 
not hold one in slavery, at any rate ; yet the point is not 
clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What 
next? Free them, and make them politically and so- 
cially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of 
this ; and if mine would, we well know that those of the 
great mass of white people will not. Whether this feeling 
accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole 
question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feel- 
ing, whether well or ill founded, cannot be safely disre- 
garded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does 
seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might 
be adopted; but for their tardiness in this I will not 
undertake to judge our brethren of the South. 



2o8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

"When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I 
acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly ; 
and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming 
of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be 
more likely to carry a free man into slavery than our 
ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. 

" But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more ex- 
cuse for permitting slavery to go into our own free terri- 
tory than it would for reviving the African slave-trade 
by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves 
from Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking 
of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any 
moral principle ; and the repeal of the former could find 
quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter." 

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows 
that I said this. I think he has the answer here to 
one of the questions he put to me. I do not mean to 
allow him to catechise me unless he pays back for 
it in kind. I will not answ^er questions one after 
another, unless he reciprocates; but as he has made 
this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has 
got it without my getting anything in return. He 
has got my answer on the Fugitive Slave law. 

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any 
greater length ; but this is the true complexion of all 
I have ever said in regard to the institution of 
slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it; 
and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect 
social and political equality w^ith the negro is but a 
specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by 
which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a 
chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this 



Abraham Lincoln 209 

subject, that I have no purpose, directly or in- 
directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery 
in the States where it exists. I believe I have no 
lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do 
so. I have no purpose to introduce political and 
social equality between the white and the black 
races. There is a physical difference between the 
two w^hich, in my judgment, will probably forever 
forbid their living together upon the footing of per- 
fect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a neces- 
sity that there must be a difference, I, as well as 
Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I 
belong having the superior position. I have never 
said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, not- 
withstanding all this, there is no reason in the world 
why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights 
enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, — 
the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the 
white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not 
my equal in many respects, — certainly not in color, 
perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. 
But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave 
of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my 
equal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal 
of every living man. 

Now I pass on to consider one or two more of these 
little follies. The Judge is wofully at fault about 
his early friend Lincoln being a "grocery-keeper." 
1 don't know as it would be a great sin, if I had been; 
but he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery 
anywhere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did 



2IO Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

work the latter part of one winter in a little still- 
house, up at the head of a hollow. And so I thinly 
my friend the Judge is equally at fault when he 
charges me at the time when I was in Congress oi 
having opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the 
Mexican war. The Judge did not make his charge 
very distinctly, but I can tell you what he can prove, 
by referring to the record. You remember I was 
an old Whig, and whenever the Democratic part}; 
tried to get me to vote that the war had beer 
righteously begun by the President, I would not do it. 
But whenever they asked for any money, or land- 
warrants, or anything to pay the soldiers there, dur- 
ing all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge 
Douglas did. You can think as you please as tc 
whether that was consistent. Such is the truth 
and the Judge has the right to make all he can out oi 
it. But when he, by a general charge, conveys the 
idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers who 
were fighting in the Mexican war, or did anything 
else to hinder the soldiers,^ he is, to say the least, 
grossly and altogether mistaken, as a consultation oi 
the records will prove to him. 

As I have not used up so much of my time as I had 
supposed, I will dwell a little longer upon one or two 
of these minor topics upon which the Judge has 
spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, 
in which I say that "a house divided against itself 
cannot stand." Does the Judge say it can stand? 
I don't know whether he does or not. The Judge 
does not seem to be attending to me just now, but 
I would like to know if it is his opinion that a house 



Abraham Lincoln 211 

divided against itself can stand. If he does, then 
there is a question of veracity, not between him and 
me, but between the Judge and an Authority of a 
somewhat higher character. 

Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this 
matter for the purpose of saying something seriously. 
I know that the Judge may readily enough agree 
with me that the maxim which was put forth by the 
Saviour is true, but he may allege that I misapply 
it; and the Judge has a right to urge that, in my ap- 
plication, I do misapply it, and then I have a right to 
show that I do not misapply it. When he under- 
takes to say that because I think this nation, so far 
as the question of slavery is concerned, will all become 
one thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing 
about a dead uniformity in the various States, in all 
their institutions, he argues erroneously. VThe great 
variety of the local institutions in the States, spring- 
ing from differences in the soil, differences in the face 
of the country, and in the climate, are bonds of 
Union. They do not make ' ' a house divided against 
itself," but they make a house united. If they pro- 
duce in one section of the country what is called for 
by the wants of another section, and this other sec- 
tion can supply the wants of the first, they are not 
matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds 
of union. But can this question of slavery be con- 
sidered as among these varieties in the institutions 
of the country ? I leave it to you to say whether, in 
the history of our government, this institution of 
slavery has not always failed to be a bond of union, 
and, on the contrary, been an apple of discord and 



212 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

an element of division in the house. I ask you to 
consider whether, so long as the moral constitution 
of men's minds shall continue to be the same, after 
this generation and assemblage shall sink into the 
grave, and another race shall arise, with the same 
moral and intellectual development we have, — 
whether, if that institution is standing in the same 
irritating position in which it now is, it will not con- 
tinue an element of division? If so, then I have 
a right to say that, in regard to this question, the 
Union is a house divided against itself; and when 
the Judge reminds me that I have often said to him 
that the institution of slavery has existed for eighty 
years in some States, and yet it does not exist in 
some others, I agree to the fact, and I account for 
it by looking at the position in which our fathers 
originally placed it — restricting it from the new 
Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to 
cut off its source by the abrogation of the slave- 
trade, thus putting the seal of legislation against its 
spread. The public mind did rest in the belief that 
it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But 
lately, I think — and in this I charge nothing on the 
Judge's motives — lately, I think that he, and those 
acting with him, have placed that institution on a 
new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and national- 
ization of slavery. And while it is placed upon this 
new basis, I say, and I have said, that I believe we 
shall not have peace upon the question until the 
opponents of slavery arrest the further spread of it, 
and place it where the public mind shall rest in the 
belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; 



Abraham Lincoln 213 

or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it 
forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the 
States, old as well as new, North as well as South. 
Now, I believe if we could arrest the spread, and 
place it where Washington and Jefferson and 
Madison placed it, it would be in the course of ulti- 
mate extinction, and the public mind would, as for 
eighty years past, believe that it was in the course of 
ultimate extinction. The crisis would be past, and 
the institution might be let alone for a hundred 
years, if it should live so long, in the States where 
it exists; yet it would be going out of existence in 
the way best for both the black and the white races. 

A voice : ' ' Then do you repudiate popular sover- 
eignty ? ' ' 

Mr. Lincoln: Well, then, let us talk about 
popular sovereignty! What is popular sovereignty? 
Is it the right of the people to have slavery or not 
have it, as they see fit, in the Territories? I will 
state — and I have an able man to watch me — 
ni}^ understanding is that popular sovereignty, as 
now applied to the question of slavery, does allow 
the people of a Territory to have slavery if they 
want to, but does not allow them not to have it if 
they do not want it. I do not mean that if this vast 
concourse of people were in a Territory of the United 
States, any one of them would be obliged to have a 
slave if he did not want one ; but I do say that, as I 
understand the Dred Scott decision, if any one man 
wants slaves, all the rest have no way of keeping 
that one man from holding them. 

When I made my speech at Springfield, of which 



214 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the Judge complains, and from which he quotes, I 
really was not thinking of the things which he as- 
cribes to me at all. I had no thought in the world 
that I was doing anything to bring about a war 
between the free and slave states. I had no 
thought in the world that I was doing anything to 
bring about a political and social equality of the 
black and white races. It never occurred to me 
that I was doing anything or favoring anything to 
reduce to a dead uniformity all the local institutions 
of the various States. But I must say, in all fair- 
ness to him, if he thinks I am doing something which 
leads to these bad results, it is none the better that 
I did not mean it. It is just as fatal to the country, 
if I have any influence in producing it, whether I 
intend it or not. But can it be true that placing this 
institution upon the original basis — the basis upon 
which our fathers placed it — can have any tendency 
to set the Northern and the Southern States at war 
with one another, or that it can have any tendency 
to make the people of Vermont raise sugar-cane, 
because they raise it in Louisiana, or that it can 
compel the people of Illinois to cut pine logs on the 
Grand Prairie, where they will not grow, because 
they cut pine logs in Maine, where they do grow? 
The Judge says this is a new principle started in 
regard to this question. Does the Judge claim that 
he is working on the plan of the founders of govern- 
ment? I think he says in some of his speeches — 
indeed, I have one here now— that he saw evidence 
of a policy to allow slavery to be south of a certain 
line, while north of it it should be excluded, and he 



Abraham Lincoln 215 

saw an indisposition on the part of the country to 
stand upon that pohcy, and therefore he set about 
studying the subject upon original principles, and 
upon original principles he got up the Nebraska Bill! 
I am fighting it upon these "original principles," — 
fighting it in the Jeffersonian, Washingtonian, and 
Madisonian fashion. 

Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little 
while to one or two other things in that Springfield 
speech. My main object was to show, so far as my 
humble ability was capable of showing, to the people 
of this country what I believed was the truth, — ■ 
that there was a tendency, if not a conspiracy, among 
those who have engineered this slavery question for 
the last four or five years, to make slavery perpetual 
and universal in this nation. Having made that 
speech principally for that object, after arranging the 
evidences that I thought tended to prove my pro- 
position, I concluded with this bit of comment: 

" We cannot absolutely know that these exact adap- 
tations are the result of preconcert; but when we see a 
lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we 
know have been gotten out at different times and places, 
and by different workmen — Stephen, Franklin, Roger, 
and James, for instance, — and when we see these timbers 
joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of 
a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly 
fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different 
pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not 
a piece too many or too few, — not omitting even the 
scaffolding, — or if a single piece be lacking, we see the 
place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to 



2i6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

bring such piece in, — in such a case we feel it impossible 
not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and 
James all understood one another from the beginning, and 
all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before the 
first blow was struck." 

When my friend Judge Douglas came to Chicago 
on the 9th of ]u\y, this speech having been delivered 
on the 1 6th of June, he made an harangue there, in 
which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing 
that he had carefully read it; and while he paid no 
attention to this matter at all, but complimented me 
as being a "kind, amiable, and intelligent gentle- 
man," notwithstanding I had said this, he goes on 
and eliminates, or draws out, from my speech this 
tendency of mine to set the States at war with one 
another, to make all the institutions uniform, and set 
the niggers and white people to marrying together. 
Then, as the Judge had complimented me with these 
pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), 
I was a little "taken," for it came from a great man. 
I was not very much accustomed to flattery, and 
it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the 
Hoosier, with the gingerbread, when he said he 
reckoned he loved it better than any other man, and 
got less of it. As the Judge had so flattered me, I 
could not make up my mind that he meant to deal 
unfairly wath me ; so I went to work to show him that 
he misunderstood the whole scope of my speech, and 
that I really never intended to set the people at war 
with one another. As an illustration, the next time 
I met him, which was at Springfield, I used this ex- 
pression, that I claimed no right under the Con- 



Abraham Lincoln 217 

stitution, nor had I any inclination, to enter into the 
slave States and interfere with the institutions of 
slavery. He says upon that: Lincoln will not enter 
into the slave States, but will go to the banks of 
the Ohio, on this side, and shoot over! He runs on, 
step by step, in the horse-chestnut style of argument, 
until in the Springfield speech he says: "Unless he 
shall be successful in firing his batteries until he shall 
have extinguished slavery in all the States the Union 
shall be dissolved." Now, I don't think that was 
exactly the way to treat "a kind, amiable, intelligent 
gentleman." I know if I had asked the Judge to 
show when or where it was I had said that, if I didn't 
succeed in firing into the slave States until slavery 
should be extinguished, the Union should be dis- 
solved, he could not have shown it. I understand 
what he would do. He would say: I don't mean to 
quote from you, but this was the result of what you 
say. But I have the right to ask, and I do ask now. 
Did you not put it in such a form that an ordinary 
reader or listener would take it as an expression 
jrom mef 

In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 1 7th, 
I thought I might as well attend to my own business 
a little, and I recalled his attention as well as I could 
to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize slaver}^ 
I called his attention to the fact that he had acknow- 
ledged in my hearing twice that he had carefully 
read the speech, and, in the language of the lawyers, 
as he had twice read the speech, and still had put in 
no plea or answer, I took a default on him. I in- 
sisted that I had a right then to renew that charge 



2i8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

of conspiracy. Ten days afterward I met the Judge 
at Clinton, — that is to say, I was on the ground, but 
not in the discussion, — and heard him make a speech. 
Then he comes in with his plea to this charge, for the 
first time; and his plea when put in, as well as I 
can recollect it, amounted to this : that he never had 
any talk with Judge Taney or the President of the 
United States with regard to the Dred Scott decision 
before it was made. I (Lincoln) ought to know that 
the man who makes a charge without knowing it to 
be true falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells 
a falsehood; and, lastly, that he would pronounce 
the whole thing a falsehood; but, he would make no 
personal application of the charge of falsehood, not 
because of any regard for the "kind, amiable, in- 
telligent gentleman," but because of his own per- 
sonal self-respect ! I have understood since then 
(but [turning to Judge Douglas] will not hold the 
Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken 
through the "self-respect," and has got to saying 
the thing out. The Judge nods to me that it is so. 
It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good- 
humored as I do, when the Judge acknowledges that 
he has been trying to make a question of veracity 
with me. I know the Judge is a great man, while 
I am only a small man, but / feel that I have got him. 
I demur to that plea. I waive all objections that it 
was not filed till after default was taken, and demur 
to it upon the merits. What if Judge Douglas never 
did talk with Chief Justice Taney and the President 
before the Dred Scott decision was made, does it 
follow that he could not have had as perfect an under- 



Abraham Lincoln 219 

standing without talking as with it? I am not dis- 
posed to stand upon my legal advantage. I am dis- 
posed to take his denial as being like an answer in 
chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, in- 
formation, or belief in the existence of such a con- 
spiracy. I am disposed to take his answer as being 
as broad as though he had put it in these words. 
And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I 
a right to prove it on him, and to offer the evidence of 
more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it; and 
if the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, 
does his broader answer denying all knowledge, in- 
formation, or belief, disturb the fact? It can only 
show that he was used by conspirators, and was not 
a leader of them. 

Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral 
rule that persons who tell what they do not know to 
be true falsify as much as those who knowingly tell 
falsehoods. I remember the rule, and it must be 
borne in mind that in what I have read to you, I do 
not say that I know such a conspiracy to exist. To 
that I reply, / believe it. If the Judge says that I 
do not believe it, then he says what he does not know, 
and falls within his own rule, that he who asserts a 
thing which he does not know to be true, falsifies 
as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I 
want to call your attention to a little discussion on 
that branch of the case, and the evidence which 
brought my mind to the conclusion which I ex- 
pressed as my belief. If, in arraying that evidence 
I had stated anything which was false or erroneous, 
it needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out, 



220 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

and I would have taken it back, with all the kind- 
ness in the world. I do not deal in that way. If I 
have brought forward anything not a fact, if he will 
point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. 
But if he will not point out anything erroneous in 
the evidence, is it not rather for him to show, by a 
comparison of the evidence, that I have reasoned 
falsely, than to call the "kind, amiable, intelligent 
gentleman" a liar? If I have reasoned to a false 
conclusion, it is the vocation of an able debater to 
show by argument that I have wandered to an 
erroneous conclusion. I want to ask your attention 
to a portion of the Nebraska Bill, which Judge 
Douglas has quoted: "It being the true intent and 
meaning of this Act, not to legislate slavery into any 
Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but 
to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, 
subject only to the Constitution of the United 
States." Thereupon Judge Douglas and others 
began to argue in favor of "popular sovereignty," — 
the right of the people to have slaves if they wanted 
them, and to exclude slavery if they did not want 
them. "But," said, in substance, a Senator from 
Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), "we more than suspect 
that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude 
slavery if they wish to ; and if you do mean it, accept 
an amendment which I propose, expressly author- 
izing the people to exclude slavery." I believe I 
have the amendment here before me, which was 
offered, and under which the people of the Territory, 
through their representatives, might, if they saw fit, 



Abraham Lincoln 221 

prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And now 
I state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any 
mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those 
acting with him voted that amend^nent down. I now 
think that those men who voted it down had a real 
reason for doing so. They know what that reason 
was. It looks to us, since we have seen the Dred 
Scott decision pronounced, holding that "under the 
Constitution " the people cannot exclude slavery, — 
I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, "amiable, 
intelligent gentlemen," as though the niche was left 
as a place to put that Dred Scott decision in, — a 
niche which would have been spoiled by adopting the 
amendment. And now, I say again, if this was not 
the reason, it will avail the Judge much more to 
calmly and good-humoredly point out to these peo- 
ple what that other reason was for voting the amend- 
ment down, than, swelHng himself up, to vociferate 
that he may be provoked to call somebody a liar. 

Again : There is in that same quotation from the 
Nebraska Bill this clause: "It being the true in- 
tent and meaning of this bill not to legislate slavery 
into any Territory or State.'' I have always been 
puzzled to know what business the word "State" 
had in that connection. Judge Douglas knows. 
He put it there. He knows what he put it there for. 
We outsiders cannot say what he put it there for. 
The law they were passing was not about States, and 
was not making provisions for States. What was it 
placed there for? After seeing the Dred Scott de- 
cision, which holds that the people cannot exclude 
slavery from a Territory, if another Dred Scott 



222 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

decision shall come, holding that they cannot ex- 
clude it from a State, we shall discover that when the 
word was originall}'- put there, it was in view of some- 
thing which was to come in due time, we shall see 
that it was the other half of something. I now say 
again, if there is any different reason for putting it 
there. Judge Douglas, in a good-humored way, 
without calling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason 
was. 

When the Judge spoke at Clinton, he came very 
near making a charge of falsehood against me. He 
used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, 
I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, 
the following language : 

" I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before, for 
the reason that I did not suppose there was a man in 
America with a heart so corrupt as to believe such a 
charge could be true. I have too much respect for Mr. 
Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge." 

I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of 
respect for me he should consider I was making what 
I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. I confess it 
strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As 
the Judge did not for a moment believe that there 
was a man in America whose heart was so "corrupt" 
as to make such a charge, and as he places me among 
the " men in America" who have hearts base enough 
to make such a charge, I hope he will excuse me if I 
hunt out another charge very like this; and if it 
should turn out that in hunting I should find that 



Abraham Lincoln 223 

other, and it should turn out to be Judge Douglas 
himself who made it, I hope he will reconsider this 
question of the deep corruption of heart he has 
thought fit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's 
speech of March 22, 1858, which I hold in my hand, 
he says: 

' ' In this connection there is another topic to which I 
desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of news- 
papers, or notice the articles which they publish in regard 
to myself; but the course of the Washington Union has 
been so extraordinary for the last two or three months, 
that I think it well enough to make some allusion to it. 
It has read me out of the Democratic party every other 
day, at least for two or three months, and keeps reading 
me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues to 
read me out, using such terms as 'traitor,' 'renegade,' 
'deserter,' and other kind and polite epithets of that 
nature. Sir, I have no vindication to make of my De- 
mocracy against the Washington Union, or any other 
newspapers. I am willing to allow my history and action 
for the last twenty years to speak for themselves as to my 
political' principles and my fidelity to political obliga- 
tions. The Washington Union has a personal grievance. 
When its editor was nominated for public printer, I de- 
clined to vote for him, and stated that at some time I 
might give my reasons for doing so. Since I declined to 
give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, these vindictive and 
constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. 
Will my friend from Michigan read the article to which I 
allude?" 

This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me 
from reading the entire article of the Washington 



2 24 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The 
Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly: 

"Mr. President, you here find several distinct proposi- 
tions advanced boldly by the Washington Union edi- 
torially, and apparently authoritatively; and any man who 
questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a 
Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that 
the primary object of all government at its original in- 
stitution is the protection of person and property ; second, 
that the Constitution of the United States declares that 
the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privi- 
leges and immunities of citizens in the several States ; and 
that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic or 
otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from 
settling in another with their slave property, and espe- 
cially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the 
original intention of the government and Constitution 
of the United States; and, fourth, that the emancipa- 
tion of the slaves of the Northern States was a gross 
outrage of the rights of property, inasmuch as it was 
involuntarily done on the part of the owner. 

"Remember that this article was published in the 
Union on the 17 th of November, and on the i8th ap- 
peared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union 
to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words: 

" ' Kansas and Her Constitution. — The vexed ques- 
tion is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point 
of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs 
is over and gone ' — 

"And a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when 
you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you 
find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put 
forth editorially in the Union. What is it? 

" Article 7, Section i. The right of property is 



Abraham Lincoln 225 

before and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and 
the right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its 
increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of the 
owner of any property whatever.' 

" Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitu- 
tion may be amended after 1864 by a two- thirds vote: 

" ' But no alteration shall be made to affect the right 
of property in the ownership of slaves.' 

' ' It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Con- 
stitution that they are identical in spirit with the au- 
thoritative article in the Washington Union of the day 
previous to its indorsement of this Constitution." 

I pass over some portions of the speech, and I 
hope that any one who feels interested in this mat- 
ter will read the entire section of the speech, and 
see whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds : 

■'When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of 
November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton 
Constitution on the iith of November, and this clause in 
the Constitution assorting the doctrine that a State has 
no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that 
there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of 
the States of this Union." 

I stop the quotation there, again requesting that 
it may all be read. I have read all of the portion I 
desire to comment upon. What is this charge that 
the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart 
to make? It was a puipose on the part of certain 
high functionaries to make it impossible for the 
people of one State to prohibit the people of any 
other State from entering it with their "property," 
so called, and making it a slave State. In other 



2 26 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

words, it was a charge implying a design to make 
the institution of slavery national. And now I ask 
your attention to what Judge Douglas has himself 
done here. I know he made that part of the speech 
as a reason why he had refused to vote for a certain 
man for public printer; but when we get at it, the 
charge itself is the very one I made against him, 
that he thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now, 
whom does he make that charge against? Does he 
make it against that newspaper editor merely? No; 
he says it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton 
Constitution, and so the framers of that Constitu- 
tion are brought in with the editor of the newspaper 
in that "fatal blow being struck," He did not call 
it a "conspiracy." In his language, it is a "fatal 
blow being struck." And if the words carry the 
meaning better when changed from a ' ' conspiracy 
into a "fatal blow being struck," I will change my 
expression, and call it "fatal blow being struck." 
We see the charge made not merely against the 
editor of the Union, but all the framers of the Le- 
compton Constitution; and not only so, but the 
article was an authoritative article. By whose 
authority? Is there any question but he means 
it was by the authority of the President and his 
Cabinet, — the Administration? 

Is there any sort of question but he means to make 
that charge? Then there are the editors of the 
Union, the framers of the Lecompton Constitution, 
the President of the United States and his Cabinet, 
and all the supporters of the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion, in Congress and out of Congress, who are all 



Abraham Lincoln 227 

involved in this "fatal blow being struck." I com- 
mend to Judge Douglas's consideration the question 
of how corrupt a man's heart must he to make such a 
charge! 

Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the 
subject, in the little time I have left, to which to 
call your attention; and as I shall come to a close 
at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall 
not occupy quite all the time allotted to me. Al- 
though on these questions I would like to talk twice 
as long as I have, I could not enter upon another 
head and discuss it properly without running over 
my time. I ask the attention of the people here 
assembled and elsewhere to the course that Judge 
Douglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this 
question of making slavery national. Not going 
back to the records, but taking the speeches he 
makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day 
before, and makes constantly all over the country, — 
I ask your attention to them. In the first place, 
what is necessary to make the institution national? 
Not war. There is no danger that the people of 
Kentucky will shoulder their muskets, and, with a 
young nigger stuck on every bayonet, march into 
IlHnois and force them upon us. There is no danger 
of our going over there and making war upon them. 
Then what is necessary for the nationalization of 
slavery? It is simply the next Dred Scott decision. 
It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no 
State under the Constitution can exclude it, just as 
they have already decided that under the Constitu- 
tion neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature 



228 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

can do it. When that is decided and acquiesced in, 
the whole thing is done. This being true, and this 
being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be made 
national, let us consider what Judge Douglas is 
doing every day to that end. In the first place, let 
us' see what influence he is exerting on public senti- 
ment. In this and like communities, public senti- 
ment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing 
can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Conse- 
quently, he who moulds public sentiment goes 
deeper th^n he who enacts statutes or pronounces 
decisions. He makes statutes and decisions pos- 
sible or impossible to be executed. This must be 
borne in mind, as also the additional fact that 
Judge Douglas is a man of vast influence, so great 
that it is enough for many men to profess to believe 
anything when they once find out Judge Douglas 
professes to believe it. Consider also the attitude 
he occupies at the head of a large party, — a party 
which he claims has a majority of all the voters in 
the country. This man sticks to a decision which 
forbids the people of a Territory from excluding 
slavery, and he does so, not because he says it is 
right in itself, — ^he does not give any opinion on that, 
— ^but because it has been decided by the court; and 
being decided by the court, he is, and you are, 
bound to take it in your political action as law, not 
that he judges at all of its merits, but because a de- 
cision of the court is to him a "Thus saith the 
Lord." He places it on that ground alone; and 
you will bear in mind that thus committing himself 
unreservedly to this decision commits him to the 



Abraham Lincoln 229 

next one just as firmly as to this. He did not com- 
mit himself on account of the merit or demerit of 
the decision, but it is a "Thus saith the Lord." The 
next decision, as much as this, will be a "Thus saith 
the Lord." There is nothing that can divert or turn 
him away from this decision. It is nothing that I 
point out to him that his great prototype, General 
Jackson, did not believe in the binding force of de- 
cisions. It is nothing to him that Jefferson did not 
so believe. I have said that I have often heard him 
approve of Jackson's course in disregarding the de- 
cision of the Supreme Court pronouncing a National 
Bank constitutional. He says I did not hear him 
say so. He denies the accuracy of my recollection. 
I say he ought to know better than I, but I will make 
no question about this thing, though it still seems 
to me that I heard him say it twenty times. I will 
tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the 
Cincinnati platform, which affirms that Congress 
cannot charter a National Bank, in the teeth of that 
old standing decision that Congress can charter a 
bank. And I remind him of another piece of history 
on the question of respect for judicial decisions, 
and it is a piece of Illinois history belonging to a 
time when the large party to which Judge Douglas 
belonged were displeased with a decision of the 
Supreme Court of Illinois, because they had de- 
cided that a Governor could not remove a Secretary 
of State. You will find the whole story in Ford's 
History of Illinois, and I know that Judge Douglas 
will not deny that he was then in favor of over- 
slaughing that decision by the mode of adding five 



230 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

new judges, so as to vote down the four old ones. 
Not only so, but it ended in the Judge s sitting down 
on that very bench as one of the five new judges to 
break down the jour old ones. It was in this way 
precisely that he got his title of judge. Now, when 
the Judge tells me that men appointed conditionally 
to sit as members of a court will have to be cate- 
chised beforehand upon some subject, I say, "You 
know. Judge; you have tried it." When he says 
a court of this kind will lose the confidence of all 
men, will be prostituted and disgraced by such a 
proceeding, I say, "You know best, Judge; you 
have been through the mill." But I cannot shake 
Judge Douglas's teeth loose from the Dred Scott 
decision. Like some obstinate animal (I mean no 
disrespect) that will hang on when he has once got 
his teeth fixed, you may cut off a leg, or you may 
tear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. 
And so I may point out to the Judge, and say that 
he is bespattered all over, from the beginning of his 
political life to the present time, with attacks upon 
judicial decisions; I may cut off limb after limb of 
his public record, and strive to wrench him from a 
single dictum of the court, — yet I cannot divert him 
from it. He hangs, to the last, to the Dred Scott 
decision. These things show there is a purpose 
strong as death and eternity for which he adheres to 
this decision, and for which he will adhere to all 
other decisions of the same court. 

A Hibernian: "Give us something besides Drid 
Scott." 

Mr. Lincoln: Yes; no doubt vou want to hear 



Abraham Lincoln 231 

something that don't hurt. Now, having spoken 
of the Dred Scott decision, one more word, and I am 
done. Henry Clay, my beau-ideal of a statesman, 
the man for whom I fought all my humble life, — 
Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would 
repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate eman- 
cipation that they must, if they would do this, go 
back to the era of our Independence, and muzzle 
the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return ; 
they must blow out the moral lights around us ; they 
must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate there 
the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, 
could they perpetuate slavery in this country! To 
my thinking, Judge Douglas is, by his example and 
vast influence, doing that very thing in this com- 
munity, when he says that the negro has nothing 
in the Declaration of Independence. Henry Clay 
plainly understood the contrary. Judge Douglas 
is going back to the era of our Revolution, and, to 
the extent of his ability, muzzling the cannon which 
thunders its annual joyous return. When he in- 
vites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish 
it, he is blowing out the moral lights around us. 
When he says he "cares not whether slavery is 
voted down or up," — that it is a sacred right of 
self-government, — ^he is, in my judgment, penetrat- 
ing the human soul and eradicating the light of 
reason and the love of liberty in this American 
people. And now I will only say that when, by all 
these means and appliances, Judge Douglas shall 
succeed in bringing public sentiment to an exact 
accordance with his own views; when these vast 



232 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

assemblages shall echo back all these sentiments; 
when they shall come to repeat his views and to 
avow his principles, and to say all that he says on 
these mighty questions, — then it needs only the 
formality of the second Dred Scott decision, which 
he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful 
in all the States, old as well as new, North as well 
as South. 

My friends, that ends the chapter. The Judge 
can take his half -hour. 



MR. DOUGLAS S REPLY. 

Fellow-Citizens: I will now occupy the half- 
hour allotted to me in rephnng to Mr. Lincoln. The 
first point to which I will call your attention is as 
to what I said about the organization of the Repub- 
lican party in 1854, and the platform that was 
formed on the 5 th of October of that year, and I 
will then put the question to Mr. Lincoln, whether 
or not he approves of each article in that platform, 
and ask for a specific answer. I did not charge him 
with being a member of the committee which re- 
ported that platform. I charged that that plat- 
form was the platform of the Republican party 
adopted by them. The fact that it was the platform 
of the Republican party is not denied; but Mr. 
Lincoln now says that, although his name was on 
the committee which reported it, that he does not 
think he was there, but thinks he was in Tazewell, 
holding court. Now, I want to remind Mr. Lincoln 
that he was at Springfield when that Convention 
was held and those resolutions adopted. 



Stephen A. Douglas 233 

The point I am going to remind Mr. Lincoln of is 
this: that after I had made my speech in 1854, 
during the fair, he gave me notice that he was going 
to reply to me the next day. I was sick at the 
time, but I stayed over in Springfield to hear his 
reply and to reply to him. On that day this very 
Convention, the resolutions adopted by which I 
have read, was to meet in the Senate chamber. 
He spoke in the hall of the House; and when he 
got through his speech — my recollection is distinct, 
and I shall never forget it — Mr. Codding walked in 
as I took the stand to reply, and gave notice that 
the Republican State Convention would meet in- 
stantly in the Senate chamber, and called upon the 
Republicans to retire there and go into this very 
Convention, instead of remaining and listening to 
me. 

In the first place, Mr. Lincoln was selected by 
the very men who made the Republican organiza- 
tion, on that day, to reply to me. He spoke for 
them and for that part}^, and he was the leader of 
the party; and on the very day he made his speech 
in reply to me, preaching up this same doctrine of 
negro equality under the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, this Republican party met in Convention. 
Another evidence that he was acting in concert with 
them is to be found in the fact that that Convention 
waited an hour after its time of meeting to hear 
Lincoln's speech, and Codding, one of their leading 
men, marched in the moment Lincoln got through, 
and gave notice that they did not want to hear 
me, and would proceed with the business of the 



234 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Convention. Still another fact: I have here a news- 
paper printed at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's own 
town, in October, 1854, a few days afterward, pub- 
lishing these resolutions, charging Mr. Lincoln with 
entertaining these sentiments, and trying to prove 
that they were also the sentiments of Mr. Yates, 
their candidate for Congress. This has been pub- 
lished on Mr. Lincoln over and over again, and 
never before has he denied it. 

But, my friends, this denial of his that he did not 
act on the committee is a miserable quibble to 
avoid the main issue, which is, that this Republican 
platform declares in favor of the unconditional re- 
peal of the Fugitive Slave law. Has Lincoln an- 
swered whether he indorsed that or not? I called 
his attention to it when I first addressed you, and 
asked him for an answer, and I then predicted that 
he would not answer. How does he answer ? Why, 
that he was not on the committee that wrote the 
resolutions. I then repeated the next proposition 
contained in the resolutions, which was to restrict 
slavery in those States in which it exists, and 'isked 
him whether he indorsed it. Does he answer yes, 
or no? He says in reply, "I was not on the com- 
mittee at the time; I was up in Tazewell." The 
next question I put to him was, whether he was 
in favor of prohibiting the admission of any more 
slave States into the Union. I put the question to 
him distinctly, whether, if the people of the Terri- 
tory, when they had sufficient population to make 
a State, should form their constitution recognizing 
slavery, he would vote for or against its admission. 



Stephen A. Douglas 235 

He is a candidate for th>^ United States Senate, and 
it is possible, if he should be elected, that he would 
have to vote directly on that question, I asked 
him to answer me and you, whether he would vote 
to admit a State into the Union, with slavery or 
without it, as its own people might choose. He did 
not answer that question. He dodges that question 
also, under the cover that he was not on the com- 
mittee at the time, that he was not present when 
the platform was made. I want to know if he 
should happen to be in the Senate when a State 
applied for admission, with a constitution accept- 
able to her own people, he would vote to admit that 
State, if slavery was one of its institutions. He 
avoids the answer. 

It is true he gives the Abolitionists to understand 
by a hint that he would not vote to admit such a 
State. And why? He goes on to say that the man 
who would talk about giving each State the right to 
have slavery or not, as it pleased, was akin to the 
man who would muzzle the guns which thundered 
forth the annual joyous return of the day of our 
Independence. He says that that kind of talk is 
casting a blight on the glory of this country. What 
is the meaning of that? That he is not in favor of 
each State to have the right of doing as it pleases on 
the slavery question ? I will put the question to him 
again and again, and I intend to force it out of him. 

Then, again, this platform, which was made at 
Springfield by his own party when he was its ac- 
knowledged head, provides that Republicans will 
insist on the abolition of slavery in the District of 



236 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Columbia, and I asked Lincoln specifically whether 
he agreed with them in that? ["Did you get an 
answer?"] He is afraid to answer it. He knows I 
would trot him down to Egypt. I intend to make 
him answer there, or I will show the people of 
Illinois that he does not intend to answer these 
questions. The Convention to which I have been 
alluding goes a little further, and pledges itself to 
exclude slavery from all the Territories over which 
the General Government has exclusive jurisdiction 
north of 36 deg. 30 min., as well as south. Now, I 
want to know whether he approves that provision. 
I want him to answer, and when he does, I want to 
know his opinion on another point, which is, whether 
he will redeem the pledge of this platform, and re- 
sist the acquirement of any more territory unless 
slavery therein shall be forever prohibited. I want 
him to answer this last question. Each of the 
questions I have put to him are practical questions, 
— questions based upon the fundamental principles 
of the Black Republican party; and I want to 
know whether he is the first, last, and only choice of 
a party with whom he does not agree in principle. 
He does not deny but that that principle was unani- 
movisly adopted by the Republican party; he does 
not deny that the whole Republican party is pledged 
to it; he does not deny that a man who is not 
faithful to it is faithless to the Republican party; 
and now I want to know whether that party is 
unanimously in favor of a man who does not adopt 
that creed and agree with them in their principles; 
I want to know whether the man who does not 



Stephen A. Douglas 237 

agree with them, and who is afraid to avow his 
differences, and who dodges the issue, is the first, 
last, and only choice of the Republican party. 

A voice: How about the conspiracy? 

Mr. Douglas: Never mind, I will come to that 
soon enough. But the platform which I have read 
to you not only lays down these principles, but it 
adds: 

''Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles, we 
will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall 
seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we 
will support no man for office, under the General or State 
Government, who is not positively and fully committed 
to the support of these principles, and whose personal 
character and conduct is not a guarantee that he is reli- 
able, and who shall not have abjured old party allegiance 
and ties." 

The Black Republican party stands pledged that 
they will never support Lincoln until he has pledged 
himself to that platform; but he cannot devise his 
answer, he has not made up his mind whether he 
will or not. He talked about everything else he 
could think of to occupy his hour and a half, and 
when he could not think of anything more to say, 
without an excuse for refusing to answer these 
questions, he sat down long before his time was out. 

In relation to Mr. Lincoln's charge of conspiracy 
against me, I have a word to say. In his speech 
to-day he quotes a playful part of his speech at 
Springfield, about Stephen, and James, and Frank- 
lin, and Roger, and says that I did not take ex- 
ception to it. I did not answer it, and he repeats it 



238 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

again. I did not take exception to this figure of his. 
He has a right to be as playful as he pleases in 
throwing his arguments together, and I will not 
object; but I did take objection to his second 
vSpringfield speech, in which he stated that he in- 
tended his first speech as a charge of corruption or 
conspiracy against the Supreme Court of the United 
States, President Pierce, President Buchanan, and 
myself. That gave the offensive character to the 
charge. He then said that when he made it he did 
not know whether it was true or not ; but inasmuch 
as Judge Douglas had not denied it, although he had 
replied to the other parts of his speech three times, 
he repeated it as a charge of conspiracy against me, 
thus charging me with moral tuipitude. When he 
put it in that form, I did say that, inasmuch as 
he repeated the charge simply because I had not 
denied it, I would deprive him of the opportunity of 
ever repeating it again, by declaring that it was, in 
all its bearings, an infamous lie. He says he will 
repeat it until I answer his folly and nonsense about 
Stephen, and Franklin, and Roger, and Bob, and 
James. 

He studied that out, prepared that one sentence 
witli the greatest care, committed it to memory, 
and put it in his first Springfield speech; and now 
he carries that speech around, and reads that sen- 
tence to show how pretty it is. His vanity is 
wounded because I will not go into that beautiful 
figure of his about the building of a house. All I 
have to say is, that I am not green enough to let 
him make a charge which he acknowledges he does 



Stephen A. Douglas 239 

not know to be true, and then take up my time in 
answering it, when I know it to be false, and nobody 
else knows it to be true. 

I have not brought a charge of moral turpitude 
against him. When he, or any other man, brings 
one against me, instead of disproving it, I will say 
that it is a lie, and let him prove it if he can. 

I have lived twenty-five years in Illinois, I have 
served you with all the fidelity and ability which I 
possess, and Mr. Lincoln is at liberty to attack my 
public action, my votes, and my conduct; but when 
he dares to attack my moral integrity by a charge 
of conspiracy between myself, Chief Justice Taney 
and the Supreme Court, and two Presidents of the 
United States, I will repel it. 

Mr. Lincoln has not character enough for in- 
tegrity and truth, merely on his own ipse dixit, to 
arraign President Buchanan, President Pierce, and 
nine Judges of the Supreme Court, not one of whom 
would be complimented by being put on an equality 
with him. There is an unpardonable presumption in 
a man putting himself up before thousai^.ds of people, 
and pretending that his ipse dixit, without proof, 
without fact, and without truth, is enough to bring 
down and destroy the purest and best of living men. 

Fellow-citizens, my time is fast expiring; I must 
pass on. Mr. Lincoln wants to know why I voted 
against Mr. Chase's amendment to the Nebraska 
Bill. I will tell him. In the first place, the bill 
already conferred all the power which Congress had, 
by giving the people the whole power over the sub- 
ject. Chase offered a proviso that they might 



240 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

abolish slavery, which by implication would con- 
vey the idea that they could prohibit by not intro 
ducing that institution. General Cass asked him t( 
modify his amendment so as to provide that th( 
people might either prohibit or introduce slaver}^ 
and thus make it fair and equal. Chase refused t( 
so modify his proviso, and then General Cass and al 
the rest of us voted it down. Those facts appea 
on the journals and debates of Congress, where Mr 
Lincoln found the charge; and if he had told th( 
whole truth, there would have been no necessity fo 
me to occupy your time in explaining the matter. 

Mr. Lincoln wants to know why the word "State,' 
as well as "Territory," was put into the Nebrask; 
Bill. I will tell him. It was put there to meet jus 
such false arguments as he has been adducing 
That first, not only the people of the Territorie 
should do as they pleased, but that when they com 
to be admitted as States, they should come into th 
Union with or without slavery, as the people de 
termined. I meant to knock in the head thi 
Abolition doctrine of Mr. Lincoln's, that there sha' 
be no more slave States, even if the people wan 
them. And it does not do for him to say, or for an; 
other Black Republican to say, that there is nobod; 
in favor of the doctrine of no more slave States, an^ 
that nobody wants to interfere with the right of th 
people to do as they please. What was the origi; 
of the Missouri difficulty and the Missouri Corr 
promise? The people of Missouri formed a const 
tution as a slave State, and asked admission int 
the Union; but the Free-soil party of the Nortt 



Stephen A. Douglas 241 

being in a majority, refused to admit her because 
she had slavery as one of her institutions. Hence 
this first slavery agitation arose upon a State, and 
not upon a Territory; and yet Mr. Lincoln does not 
know why the word "State" was placed in the 
Kansas-Nebraska Bill. The whole Abolition agita- 
tion arose on that doctrine of prohibiting a State 
from coming in with slavery or not, as it pleased, 
and that same doctrine is here in this Republican 
platform of 1854; it has never been repealed; and 
every Black Republican stands pledged by that 
platform never to vote for any man who is not in 
favor of it. Yet Mr, Lincoln does not know that there 
is a man in the world who is in favor of preventing 
a State from coming in as it pleases, notwithstanding. 
The Springfield platform says that the}^ the Re- 
publican party, will not allow a State to come in 
under such circumstances. He is an ignorant man. 
Now, you see that upon these very points I am 
as far from bringing Mr. Lincoln up to the line as I 
ever was before. He does not want to avow his 
principles. I do want to avow mine, as clear as 
sunlight in midday. Democracy is founded upon 
the eternal principle of right. The plainer these 
principles are avowed before the people, the stronger 
will be the support which they will receive. I only 
wish I had the power to make them so clear that 
they would shine in the heavens for every man, 
woman, and child to read. The first of those 
principles that I would proclaim would be in oppo- 
sition to Mr. Lincoln's doctrine of uniformity be- 
tween the different States, and I would declare 
• 16 



242 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

instead the sovereign right of each State to decide 
the slavery question as well as all other domestic 
questions for themselves, without interference from 
any other State or power whatsoever. 

When that principle is recognized, you will have 
peace and harmony and fraternal feeling between 
all the States of this Union; until you do recognize 
that doctrine, there will be sectional warfare agitat- 
ing and distracting the country. What does Mr. 
Lincoln propose? He says that the Union cannot 
exist divided into free and slave States. If it 
cannot endure thus divided, then he must strive to 
make them all free or all slave, which will inevitably 
bring about a dissolution of the Union. 

Gentlemen, I am told that my time is out, and I 
am obliged to stop. 



SECOND JOINT DEBATE, AT FREEPORT, 

August 27, 1858. 

MR. Lincoln's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : On Saturday last, Judge 
Douglas and myself first met in public discussion. 
He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, and he re- 
plied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. 
I am to speak an hour, he an hour and a half, and 
then I am to reply for half an hour. I propose to 
devote myself during the first hour to the scope of 
what was brought within the range of his half -hour 
speech at Ottawa. Of course there was brought 
within the scope in that half-hour's speech some- 
thing of his own opening speech. In the course of 
that opening argument Judge Douglas proposed to 
me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech of 
an hour and a half, I attended to some other parts 
of his speech, and incidentally, as I thought, in- 
timated to him that I would answer the rest of his 
interrogatories on condition only that he should 
agree to answer as many for me. He made no 
intimation at the time of the proposition, nor did he 
in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. 
I do him no injustice in saying that he occupied at 
least half of his reply in dealing with me as though 
I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I now 
propose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, 

343 



244 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

upon condition that he will answer questions from 
me not exceeding the same number. I give him an 
opportunity to respond. The Judge remains silent. 
I now say that I will answer his interrogatories, 
whether he answers mine or not; and that after I 
have done so, I shall propound mine to him. 

I have supposed myself, since the organization of 
the Republican party at Bloomington, in May, 1856, 
bound as a party man by the platforms of the party, 
then and since. If in any interrogatories which I 
shall answer I go beyond the scope of what is within 
these platforms, it will be perceived that no one is 
responsible but myself. 

Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's 
interrogatories as I find them printed in the Chicago 
Times, and answer them seriatim. In order that 
there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the 
interrogatories in writing, and also my answers to 
them. The first one of these interrogatories is in 
these words: 

Question i. — "I desire to know whether Lincoln 
to-day stands, as he did in 1854, in favor of the un- 
conditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law?" 

Answer. — I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor 
of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. 

Q. 2. "I desire him to answer whether he stands 
pledged to-day, as he did in 1854, against the ad- 
mission of any more slave States into the Union, 
even if the people want them?" 

A. I do not now, nor ever did, stand pledged 
against the admission of any more slave States into 
the Union. 



Abraham Lincoln 245 

Q. 3. "I want to know whether he stands 
pledged against the admission of a new State into 
the Union with such a constitution as the people 
of that State may see fit to make ? ' ' 

A. 1 do not stand pledged against the admission 
of a ne^v State into the Union, with such a consti- 
tution as the people of that State may see fit to 
make. 

Q. 4. "I want to know whether he stands to-day 
pledged to the abolition of slavery in the District 
of Columbia ? ' ' 

A. I do not stand to-day pledged to the abolition 
of slavery in the District of Columbia. 

Q. 5, "I desire him to answer whether he stands 
pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between 
the different States?" 

.4. I do not stand pledged to the prohibition of 
the slave-trade between the different States. 

Q. 6. "I desire to know whether he stands 
pledged to prohibit slavery in all the Territories of 
the United States, north as well as south of the 
Missouri Compromise line?" 

.4. I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to 
a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit 
slavery in all the United States Territories. 

Q. 7. "I desire him to answer whether he is op- 
posed to the acquisition of any new territory unless 
slavery is first prohibited therein ? ' ' 

.4. I am not generally opposed to honest ac- 
quisition of territory; and, in any given case, I 
would or would not oppose such acquisition, ac- 
cordingly as I might think such acquisition would 



246 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

or would not aggravate the slavery question among 
ourselves. 

Now, my friends, it will be perceived, upon an 
examination of these questions and answers, that so 
far I have only answered that I was not pledged to 
this, that, or the other. The Judge has not framed 
his interrogatories to ask me anything more than 
this, and I have answered in strict accordance with 
the interrogatories, and have answered truly, that 
I am not pledged at all upon any of the points to 
which I have answered. But I am not disposed to 
hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. I 
am rather disposed to take up at least some of these 
questions, and state what I really think upon them. 

As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave 
law, I have never hesitated to say, and I do not 
now hesitate to say, that I think, under the Con- 
stitution of the United States, the people of the 
Southern States are entitled to a Congressional 
Fugitive Slave law. Having said that, I have had 
nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive 
Slave law, further than that I think it should have 
been framed so as to be free from some of the ob- 
jections that pertain to it, without lessening its 
efficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an 
agitation in regard to an alteration or modification 
of that law, I would not be the man to introduce 
it as a new subject of agitation upon the general 
question of slavery. 

In regard to the other question, of whether I am 
pledged to the admission of any more slave States 
into the Union, I state to you very frankly that I 



Abraham Lincoln 247 

would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a posi- 
tion of having to pass upon that question. I should 
be exceedingly glad to know that there would never 
be another slave State admitted into the Union; 
but I must add that if slavery shall be kept out of 
the Territories during the territorial existence of 
any one given Territory, and then the people shall, 
having a fair chance and a clear field, when they 
come to adopt the constitution, do such an extraor- 
dinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, un- 
influenced by the actual presence of the institution 
among them, I see no alternative, if we own the 
country, but to admit them into the Union. 

The third interrogatory is answered by the answer 
to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as 
the second. 

The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of 
slavery in the District of Columbia. In relation to 
that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I 
should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished 
in the District of Columbia. I believe that Congress 
possesses the constitutional power to abolish it. 
Yet as a member of Congress, I should not, with my 
present views, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish 
slavery in the District of Columbia, unless it would 
be upon these conditions: First, that the abolition 
should be gradual; second, that it should be on a 
vote of the majority of qualified voters in the Dis- 
trict; and third, that compensation should be made 
to unwilling owners. With these three conditions, 
I confess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress 
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and, 



248 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

in the language of Henry Clay, "sweep from our 
capital that foul blot upon our nation." 

In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say 
here that, as to the question of the abolition of the 
slave-trade between the different States, I can truly 
answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about 
it. It is a subject to which I have not given that 
mature consideration that would make me feel 
authorized to state a position so as to hold myself 
entirely bound by it. In other words, that question 
has never been prominently enough before me to 
induce me to investigate whether we really have 
the constitutional power to do it. I could investi- 
gate it if I had sufficient time to bring myself to a 
conclusion upon that subject; but I have not done 
so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge 
Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should be 
of opinion that Congress does possess the constitu- 
tional power to abolish the slave-trade among the 
different States, I should still not be in favor of the 
exercise of that power, unless upon some conserva- 
tive principle as I conceive it, akin to what I have 
said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the 
District of Columbia. 

My answer as to whether I desire that slavery 
should be prohibited in all the Territories of the 
United States is full and explicit within itself, and 
cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. 
So I suppose in regard to the question whether I am 
opposed to the acquisition of any more territory 
imless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer 
is such that I could add nothing by way of illustra- 



Abraham Lincoln 249 

tion, or making myself better understood, than the 
answer which I have placed in writing. 

Now in all this the Judge has me, and he has me 
on the record. I suppose he had flattered himself 
that I was really entertaining one set of opinions for 
one place, and another set for another place; that 
I was afraid to say at one place what I uttered at 
another. What I am saying here I suppose I say 
to a vast audience as strongly tending to Abolition- 
ism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I 
believe I am saying that which, if it would be 
offensive to any persons and render them enemies 
to myself, would be offensive to persons in this 
audience. 

I now proceed to propound to the Judge the in- 
terrogatories, so far as I have framed them. I will 
bring forward a new installment when I get them 
ready. I will bring them forward now only reach- 
ing to number four. 

The first one is : 

Question i. — If the people of Kansas shall, by 
means entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, 
adopt a State constitution, and ask admission into 
the Union under it, before they have the requisite 
number of inhabitants according to the English 
bill, — some ninety -three thousand, — will you vote to 
admit them? 

Q. 2 . Can the people of a United States Territory, / 
in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen 
of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits 
prior to the formation of a State constitution? 

Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States 



250 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

shall decide that States cannot exclude slavery from 
their limits, are you in favor of acquiescing in, adopt- 
ing, and following such decision as a rule of political 
action ? 

Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional 
territory, in disregard of how such acquisition may 
affect the nation on the slavery question? 

As introductory to these interrogatories which 
Judge Douglas propounded to me at Ottawa, he 
read a set of resolutions which he said Judge Trum- 
bull and myself had participated in adopting, in the 
first Republican State Convention, held at Spring- 
field in October, 1854. He insisted that I and Judge 
Trumbull, and perhaps the entire Republican party, 
were responsible for the doctrines contained in the 
set of resolutions which he read, and I understand 
that it was from that set of resolutions that he 
deduced the interrogatories which he propounded 
to me, using these resolutions as a sort of authority 
for propounding those questions to me. Now, I 
say here to-day that I do not answer his interroga- 
tories because of their springing at all from that set 
of resolutions which he read. I answered them be- 
cause Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I 
do not now, nor ever did, recognize any responsi- 
bility upon myself in that set of resolutions. When 
I replied to him on that occasion, I assured him that 
I never had anything to do with them. I repeat 
here to-day that I never in any possible form had 
anything to do with that set of resolutions. It 
turns out, I believe, that those resolutions were 
never passed in any convention held in Springfield. 



Abraham Lincoln 251 

It turns out that they were never passed at any 
convention or any public meeting that I had any 
part in. I believe it turns out, in addition to all 
this, that there was not, in the fall of 1854, any con- 
vention holding a session in Springfield, calling itself 
a Republican State Convention; yet it is true there 
was a convention, or assemblage of men calling 
themselves a convention, at Springfield, that did 
pass some resolutions. But so little did I really 
know of the proceedings of that convention, or what 
set of resolutions they had passed, though having a 
general knowledge that there had been such an 
assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglas 
read the resolutions, I really did not know but they 
had been the resolutions passed then and there. 
I did not question that they were the resolutions 
adopted. For I could not bring myself to suppose 
that Judge Douglas could say what he did upon 
this subject without knowing that it was true. I 
contented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as 
I truly could, all connection with them, not denying 
or affirming whether they were passed at Spring- 
field. Now, it turns out that he had got hold of 
some resolutions passed at some convention or 
public meeting in Kane Count3^ I wish to say 
here, that I don't conceive that in any fair and just 
mind this discovery relieves me at all. I had just 
as much to do with the convention in Kane County 
as that at Springfield. I am as much responsible 
for the resolutions at Kane Coanty as those at 
Springfield, — the amount of the responsibility being 
exactly nothing in either case; no more than there 



252 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in 
the moon. 

I allude to this extraordinary matter in this can- 
vass for some further purpose than anything yet 
advanced. Judge Douglas did not make his state- 
ment upon that occasion as matters that he be- 
lieved to be true, but he stated them roundly as 
being true, in such form as to pledge his veracity for 
their truth. When the whole matter turns out as it 
does, and when we consider who Judge Douglas is, — 
that he is a distinguished Senator of the United 
States; that he has served nearly twelve years as 
such; that his character is not at all limited as an 
ordinary Senator of the United States, but that his 
name has become of world-wide renown, — it is most 
extraordinary that he should so far forget all the 
suggestions of justice to an adversary, or of prudence 
to himself, as to venture upon the assertion of that 
which the slightest investigation would have shown 
him to be wholly false. I can only account for his 
having done so upon the supposition that that evil 
genius which has attended him through his life, 
giving to. him an apparent astonishing prosperity, 
such as to lead very many good men to doubt there 
being any advantage in virtue over vice, — I say I can 
only account for it on the supposition that that evil 
genius has as last made up its mind to forsake him. 

And I may add that another extraordinary feature 
of the Judge's conduct in this canvass — made more 
extraordinary by this incident — is, that he is in the 
habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charg- 
ing falsehood upon his adversaries, myself and 



Abraham Lincoln 253 

others. I now ask whether he is able to find in any- 
thing that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said, 
or in anything that I have said, a justification at all 
compared with what we have, in this instance, for 
that sort of vulgarity. 

I have been in the habit of charging as a matter of 
belief on my part that, in the introduction of the 
Nebraska Bill into Congress, there was a conspiracy 
to make slavery perpetual and national. I have 
arranged from time to time the evidence which 
establishes and proves the truth of this charge. I 
recurred to this charge at Ottawa. I shall not now 
have time to dwell upon it at very great length; 
but inasmuch as Judge Douglas, in his reply of half 
an hour, made some points upon me in relation to it, 
I propose noticing a few of them. 

The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made, 
in which I very distinctly made that charge, he 
thought for a good while I was in fun! that I was 
playful; that I was not sincere about it; and that 
he only grew angry and somewhat excited when he 
found that I insisted upon it as a matter of earnest- 
ness. He says he characterized it as a falsehood 
so far as I implicated his moral character in that 
transaction. Well, I did not know, till he pre- 
sented that view, that I had implicated his moral 
character. He is very much in the habit, when he 
argues me up into a position I never thought of 
occupying, of very cosily saying he has no doubt 
Lincoln is "conscientious" in saying so. He should 
remember that I did not know but what he was 
ALTOGETHER "CONSCIENTIOUS" in that matter. I 



254 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

can conceive it possible for men to conspire to do 
a good thing, and I really find nothing in Judge 
Douglas's course of arguments that is contrary to 
or inconsistent with his belief of a conspiracy to 
nationalize and spread slavery as being a good and 
blessed thing; and so I hope he will understand 
that I do not at all question but that in all this 
matter he is entirely "conscientious." 

But to draw your attention to one of the points 
I made in this case, beginning at the beginning: 
When the Nebraska Bill was introduced, or a short 
time afterward, by an amendment, I believe, it was 
provided that it must be considered ' ' the true intent 
and meaning of this Act not to legislate slavery into 
any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, 
but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to 
form and regulate their own domestic institutions 
in their own way, subject only to the Constitution 
of the United States." I have called his attention 
to the fact that when he and some others began 
arguing that they were giving an increased degree 
of liberty to the people in the Territories over and 
above what they formerl}^ had on the question of 
slavery, a question was raised whether the law was 
enacted to give vSuch unconditional liberty to the 
people; and to test the sincerity of this mode of 
argument, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, introduced an amend- 
ment, in w^hich he made the law — if the amendmenj; 
were adopted — expressly declare that the people of 
the Territory should have the power to exclude 
slavery if they saw fit. I have asked attention also 
to the fact that Judge Douglas and those who acted 



Abraham Lincoln 255 

with him voted that amendment down, notwith- 
standing it expressed exactly the thing they said 
was the true intent and meaning of the law. I have 
called attention to the fact that in subsequent times 
a decision of the Supreme Court has been made, in 
which it has been declared that a Territorial Legis- 
lature has no constitutional right to exclude slavery. 
And I have argued and said that for men who did, 
intend that the people of the Territory should have 
the right to exclude slavery absolutely and uncon- 
ditionally, the voting down of Chase's amendment 
is wholly inexplicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. 
But I have said, that with men who did look forward 
to such a decision, or who had it in contemplation 
that such a decision of the Supreme Court would or 
might be made, the voting down of that amend- 
ment would be perfectly rational and intelligible. 
It would keep Congress from coming in collision 
with the decision when it was made. Anybody 
can conceive that if there was an intention or ex- 
pectation that such a decision was to follow, it 
would not be a very desirable party attitude to get 
into for the Supreme Court — all or nearly all its 
members belonging to the same party — to decide 
one way, when the party in Congress had decided 
the other way. Hence it would be very rational 
for men expecting such a decision to keep the niche 
in that law clear for it. After pointing this out, I 
tell Judge Douglas that it looks to me as though 
here was the reason why Chase's amendment was 
voted down. I tell him that, as he did it, and 
knows why he did it, if it was done for a reason 



256 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

different from this, he knows what that reason was 
and can tell us what it was. I tell him, also, it will 
be vastly more satisfactory to the country for him 
to give some other plausible, intelligible reason why 
it was voted down than to stand upon his dignity 
and call people liars. Well, on Saturday he did 
make his answer; and what do you think it was? 
He says if I had only taken upon myself to tell the 
whole truth about that amendment of Chase's, no 
explanation would have been necessary on his part 
— or words to that effect. Now, I say here that 
I am quite unconscious of having suppressed any- 
thing material to the case, and I am very frank to 
admit if there is any sound reason other than that 
which appeared to me material, it is quite fair for 
him to present it. What reason does he propose? 
That when Chase came forward with his amend- 
ment expressly authorizing the people to exclude 
slavery from the limits of every Territory, General 
Cass proposed to Chase, if he (Chase) would add to 
his amendment that the people should have the 
power to introduce or exclude, they would let it go. 
This is substantially all of his reply. And because 
Chase would not do that, they voted his amendment 
down. Well, it turns out, I believe, upon examina- 
tion, that General Cass took some part in the little 
running debate upon that amendment, and then 
ran away and did not vote on it at all. Is not that 
the fact? So confident, as I think, was General 
Cass that there was a snake somewhere about, he 
chose to run away from the whole thing. This is an 
inference I draw from the fact that, though he took 



Abraham Lincoln 257 

part in the debate, his name does not appear in the 
ayes and noes. But does Judge Douglas's reply- 
amount to a satisfactory answer? [Cries of "Yes," 
"Yes," and "No," "No."] There is some little 
difference of opinion here. But I ask attention to a 
few more views bearing on the question of whether 
it amounts to a satisfactory answer. The men who 
were determined that that amendment should not 
get into the bill, and spoil the place where the Dred 
Scott decision was to come in, sought an excuse to 
get rid of it somewhere. One of these ways — one 
of these excuses — was to ask Chase to add to his 
proposed amendment a provision that the people 
might introduce slavery if they wanted to. They 
very well knew Chase would do no such thing, that 
Mr. Chase was one of the men differing from them 
on the broad principle of his insisting that freedom 
was better than slavery, — a man who would not con- 
sent to enact a law, penned with his own hand, 
by which he was made to recognize slavery on the 
one hand, and liberty on the other, as precisely 
equal; and when they insisted on his doing this, they 
very well knew they insisted on that which he would 
not for a moment think of doing, and that they were 
only blufffng him. I believe (I have not, since he 
made his answer, had a chance to examine the 
jouiTials or Congressional Globe and therefore speak 
from memory) — I believe the state of the bill at that 
time, according to parUamentary rules, was such 
that no member could propose an additional amend- 
ment to Chase's amendment. I rather think this 
is the truth, — the Judge shakes his head. Very 



258 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

well. I would like to know, then, if they wanted 
Chase's amendment fixed over, why somebody else 
could not have offered to do it f If they wanted it 
amended, why did they not offer the amendment? 
Why did they not put it in themselves f But to put 
it on the other ground : suppose that there was such 
an amendment offered, and Chase's was an amend- 
ment to an amendment; until one is disposed of 
by parliamentary law, you cannot pile another on. 
Then all these gentlemen had to do was to vote 
Chase's on, and then, in the amended form in which 
the whole stood, add their own amendment to it, if 
they wanted to put it in that shape. This was all 
they were obliged to do, and the ayes and noes show 
that there were thirty-six who voted it down, against 
ten who voted in favor of it. The thirty-six held 
entire sway and control. They could in some form 
or other have put that bill in the exact shape they 
wanted. If there was a rule preventing their amend- 
ing it at the time, the}^ could pass that, and then, 
Chase's amendment being merged, put it in the 
shape they wanted. They did not choose to do so, 
but they went into a quibble with Chase to get him 
to add what they knew he would not add, and be- 
cause he would not, they stand upon the flimsy 
pretext for voting down what they argued was the 
meaning and intent of their own bill. They left 
room thereby for this Dred Scott decision, which 
goes very far to make slavery national throughout 
the United States. 

I pass one or two points I have, because my time 
will very soon expire; but I must be allowed to say 



Abraham Lincoln 259 

that Judge Douglas recurs again, as he did upon one 
or two other occasions, to the enormity of Lincoln, — 
an insignificant individual like Lincoln, — upon his 
ipse dixit charging a conspiracy upon a large number 
of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and 
two Presidents, to nationalize slavery. I want to 
say that, in the first place, I have made no charge 
of this sort upon my ipse dixit. I have only ar- 
rayed the evidence tending to prove it, and pre- 
sented it to the understanding of others, saying 
what I think it proves, but giving you the means of 
judging whether it proves it or not. This is pre- 
cisely what I have done. I have not placed it upon 
my ipse dixit at all. On this occasion, I wish to 
recall his attention to a piece of evidence which I 
brought for^vard at Ottawa on Saturday, showing 
that he had made substantially the same charge 
against substantially the same persons, excluding 
his dear self from the category. I ask him to give 
some attention to the evidence w^hich I brought 
for^vard that he himself had discovered a "fatal 
blow being struck" against the right of the people 
to exclude slavery from their limits, which fatal 
blow he assumed as in evidence in an article in the 
Washington Union, published "by authority." I 
ask by whose authority? He discovers a similar or 
identical provision in the Lecompton Constitution. 
Made by whom ? The f ramers of that Constitution. 
Advocated by whom? By all the members of the 
party in the nation, who advocated the introduction 
of Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton 
Constitution. 



26o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

I have asked his attention to the evidence that 
he arrayed to prove that such a fatal blow was be- 
ing struck, and to the facts which he brought for- 
ward in support of that charge, — being identical with 
the one which he thinks so villainous in me. He 
pointed it, not at a newspaper editor merely, but at 
the President and his Cabinet and the members of 
Congress advocating the Lecomption Constitution 
and those framing that instrument. I must again 
be permitted to remind him that although my ipse 
dixit may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat 
reduces the force of his calling my attention to the 
enormity of my making a like charge against him. 

Go on. Judge Douglas. 



MR. DOUGLAS S SPEECH. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : The silence with which 
you have listened to Mr. Lincoln during his hour is 
creditable to this vast audience, composed of men 
of various political parties. Nothing is more honor- 
able to any large mass of people assembled for the 
purpose of a fair discussion than that kind and re- 
spectful attention that is yielded, not only to your 
political friends, but to those who are opposed to 
you in politics. 

I am glad that at last I have brought Mr. Lincoln 
to the conclusion that he had better define his 
position on certain political questions to which 1 
called his attention at Ottawa. He there showed 
no disposition, no inclination, to answer them. I 



Stephen A. Douglas 261 

did not present idle questions for him to answer, 
merely for my gratification. I laid the foundation 
for those interrogatories by showing that they con- 
stituted the platform of the party whose nomxinee he 
is for the Senate. I did not presume that I had the 
right to catechise him as I saw proper, imless I 
showed that his party, or a majority of it, stood 
upon the platform and were in favor of the proposi- 
tions upon which my questions were based. I de- 
sired simply to know, inasmuch as he had been 
nominated as the first, last, and only choice of his 
party, whether he concurred in the platform which 
that party had adopted for its government. In a 
few minutes I will proceed to review the answers 
which he has given to these interrogatories; but, in 
order to relieve his anxiety, I will first respond to 
these which he has presented to me. Mark you, he 
has not presented interrogatories which have ever 
received the sanction of the party with v^hich I am 
acting, and hence he has no other foundation for 
them than his own curiosity. 

First, he desires to know if the people of Kansas 
shall fomi a constitution by means entirely proper 
and unobjectionable, and ask admission into the 
Union as a State, before they have the requisite 
population for a member of Congress, whether I ^^'ill 
vote for that admission. Well, now, I regret ex- 
ceedingly that he did not answer that interrogatory 
himself before he put it to me, in order that we 
might understand, and not be left to infer, on which 
side he is. Mr. Trumbull, during the last session 
of Congress, voted from the beginning to the end 



262 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

against the admission of Oregon, although a free 
State, because she had not the requisite population 
for a member of Congress. Mr. Ti-umbull would 
not consent, under any circumstances, to let a State, 
free or slave, come into the Union until it had the 
requisite population. As Mr. Trumbull is in the 
held, fighting for Mr. Lincoln, I would like to have 
Mr. Lincoln answer his own question, and tell me 
whether he is fighting Tnmibull on that issue or 
not. But I will answer his question. In reference 
to Kansas, it is my opinion that as she has popula- 
tion enough to constitute a slave State, she has 
people enough for a free State. I will not make 
Kansas an exceptional case to the other States of 
the Union. I hold it to be a sound rule, of universal 
application, to require a Territory to contain the 
requisite population for a member of Congress be- 
fore it is admitted as a State into the Union. I 
made that proposition in the Senate in 1856, and I 
renewed it during the last session, in a bill providing 
that no Territory of the United States should fonn 
a constitution and apply for admission until it had 
the requisite population. On another occasion I 
proposed that neither Kansas nor any other Terri- 
tory should be admitted until it had the requisite 
population. Congress did not adopt any of my 
propositions containing this general rule, but did 
make an exception of Kansas. I will stand by that 
exception. Either Kansas must come in as a free 
State, with whatever population she may have, or 
the rule must be applied tc all the other Territories 
alike. I therefore answer at once, that, it having 



Stephen A. Douglas 263 

been decided that Kansas has people enough for a 
slave State, I hold that she has enough for a free 
State. I hope Mr. Lincoln is satisfied with my 
answer; and now I would like to get his answer to 
his own interrogatory, — whether or not he will vote 
to admit Kansas before she has the requisite popula- 
tion. I want to know whether he will vote to 
admit Oregon before that Territory has the requisite 
population. Mr. Trumbull will not, and the same 
reason that commits Mr. Trumbull against the ad- 
mission of Oregon commits him against Kansas, 
even if she should apply for admission as a free 
State. If there is any sincerity, any truth, in the 
argument of Mr. Trumbull in the Senate, against 
the admission of Oregon because she had not 93,420 
people, although the population was larger than that 
of Kansas, he stands pledged against the admission 
of both Oregon and Kansas until they have 93,420 
inhabitants. I would like Mr. Lincoln to answer 
this question. I would like him to take his own 
medicine. If he differs with Mr. Trumbull, let him 
answer his argument against the admission of Ore- 
gon, instead of poking questions at me. 

The next question propounded to me by Mr. 
Lincoln is. Can the people of a Territory in any law- 
ful way, against the wishes of any citizen of the 
United States, exclude slavery from their limits 
prior to the formation of a State constitution? I 
answer emphatically, as Mr. Lincoln has heard me 
answer a hundred times from every stump in Illinois, 
that in my opinion the people of a Territory can, 
by lawful means, exclude slavery from their limits 



264 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

prior to the formation of a State constitution. Mr. 
Lincoln knew that I had answered that question 
over and over again. He heard me argue the 
Nebraska Bill on that principle all over the State in 
1854, in 1855, and in 1856, and he has no excuse for 
pretending to be in doubt as to my position on that 
question. It matters not what way the Supreme 
Court may hereafter decide as to the abstract ques- 
tion whether slavery may or may not go into a 
Territory under the Constitution, the people have 
the lawful means to introduce it or exclude it as they 
/ please, for the reason that slaver}^ cannot exist a 
day or an hour anywhere, unless it is supported by 
local police regulations. Those police regulations 
can only be established by the local legislature ; and 
if the people are opposed to slavery, they will elect 
representatives to that body who will by unfriendly 
legislation effectually prevent the introduction of 
it into their midst. If, on the contrary, they are 
for it, their legislation will favor its extension. 
Hence, no matter what the decision of the Supreme 
Court may be on that abstract question, still the 
right of the people to make a slave Territory or a 
free Territory is perfect and complete under the 
Nebraska Bill. I hope Mr. Lincoln deems my an- 
swer satisfactory on that point. 

In this connection, I will notice the charge which 
he has introduced in relation to Mr. Chase's amend- 
ment. I thought that I had chased that amend- 
ment out of Mr. Lincoln's brain at Ottawa; but it 
seems that it still haunts his imagination, and he 
is not yet satisfied. I had supposed that he would 



Stephen A. Douglas 265 

be ashamed to press that question further. He is a 
lawyer, and has been a member of Congress, and has 
occupied his time and amused you by telHng you 
about parHamentary proceedings. He ought to 
have known better than to try to palm off his miser- 
able impositions upon this intelligent audience. 
The Nebraska Bill provided that the legislative 
powder and authority of the said Territory should 
extend to all rightful subjects of legislation con- 
sistent with the organic act and the Constitution of 
the United States. I did not make any exception 
as to slavery, but gave all the power that it was 
possible for Congress to give, without violating the 
Constitution, to the Territorial Legislature, with no 
exception or limitation on the subject of slavery at 
all. The language of that bill which I have quoted 
gave the full power and the full authority over the 
subject of slavery, afhmiatively and negatively, to 
introduce it or exclude it, so far as the Constitution of 
the United States would permit. What more could 
Mr. Chase give by his amendment? Nothing. He 
offered his amendment for the identical purpose for 
which Mr. Lincoln is using it, — to enable demagogues 
in the country to try and deceive the people. 

His amendment w^as to this effect: it provided 
that the Legislature should have the power to ex- 
clude slavery; and General Cass suggested, "Why 
not give the power to introduce as well as exclude ? ' ' 
The answer w^as, "They have the power already in 
the bill to do both." Chase was afraid his amend- 
ment would be adopted if he put the alternative pro- 
position, and so made it fair both ways, but would 



266 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

not yield. He offered it for the purpose of having 
it rejected. He offered it, as he has himself avowed 
over and over again, simply to make capital out of 
it for the stump. He expected that it would be 
capital for small politicians in the country, and that 
they would make an effort to deceive the people with 
it; and he was not mistaken, for Lincoln is carrying 
out the plan admirably. Lincoln knows that the 
Nebraska Bill, without Chase's amendment, gave all 
the power which the Constitution would permit. 
Could Congress confer any more? Could Congress 
go beyond the Constitution of the country? We 
gave all a full grant, with no exception in regard to 
slavery one way or the other. We left that question 
as we left all others, to be decided by the people for 
themselves, just as they please. I will not occupy 
my time on this question. I have argued it before, 
all over Illinois. I have argued it in this beatitiful 
city of Freeport; I have argued it in the North, the 
South, the East, and the West, avowing the same 
sentiments and the same principles. I have not 
been afraid to avow my sentiments up here for fear 
I would be trotted down into Egypt. 

The third question which Mr. Lincoln presented is, 
if the Supreme Court of the United States shall 
decide that a State of this Union cannot exclude 
slavery from its owm limits, will I submit to it? I 
am amazed that Lincoln should ask such a question. 
["A schoolboy knows better."] Yes, a schoolboy 
does know better. Mr. Lincoln's object is to cast 
an imputation upon the Stipreme Court. He knows 
that there never was but one man in America, 



Stephen A. Douglas 267 

claiming any degree of intelligence or decency, who 
ever for a moment pretended such a thing. It is true 
that the Washington Union, in an article published 
on the 17th of last December, did put forth that 
doctrine, and I denounced the article on the floor 
of the Senate, in a speech which Mr. Lincoln now 
pretends was against the President. The Union had 
claimed that slavery had a right to go into the free 
States, and that any provisions in the constitution or 
laws of the free States to the contrary were null and 
void. I denounced it in the Senate, as I said before, 
and I was the first man who did. Lincoln's friends, 
Trumbull, and Seward, and Hale, and Wilson, and 
the whole Black Republican side of the Senate, were 
silent. They left it to me to denounce it. And 
what was the reply made to me on that occasion? 
Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, got up and undertook to 
lecture me on the ground that I ought not to have 
deemed the article worthy of notice, and ought not 
to have replied to it; that there was not one man, 
woman, or child south of the Potomac, in any slave 
State, who did not repudiate any such pretension. 
Mr. Lincoln knows that that reply was made on the 
spot, and yet now he asks this question. He might 
as well ask me, suppose Mr. Lincoln should steal a 
horse, vrould I sanction it; and it would be as genteel 
in me to ask him, in the event he stole a horse, what 
ought to be done with him. He casts an imputation 
upon the Supreme Court of the United States, by 
supposing that they would violate the Constitution 
of the United States. I tell him that such a thing is 
not possible. It would be an act of moral treason 



268 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

that no man on the bench could ever descend to. 
Mr. Lincoln himself would never in his partisan feel- 
ings so far forget what was right as to be guilty of 
such an act. 

The fourth question of Mr. Lincoln is, Are you in 
favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard 
as to how such acquisition may affect the Union 
on the slavery question? This question is very in- 
geniously and cunningly put. 

The Black Republican creed lays it down expressly 
that under no circumstances shall we acquire any 
more territory, unless slavery is first prohibited in 
the country. I ask Mr. Lincoln whether he is in 
favor of that proposition. Are you [addressing Mr. 
Lincoln] opposed to the acquisition of any more 
territory, under any circumstances, unless slavery is 
prohibited in it? That he does not like to answer. 
When I ask him whether he stands up to that article 
in the platform of his party, he turns, Yankee- 
fashion, and without answering it, asks me whether 
I am in favor of acquiring territory without regard to 
how it may affect the Union on the slavery question. 
I answer that whenever it becomes necessary, in our 
growth and progress, to acquire more territory, that 
I am in favor of it, without reference to the question 
of slavery ; and when we have acquired it, I will leave 
the people free to do as they please, either to make 
it slave or free territory, as they prefer. It is idle 
to tell me or you that we have territory enough. 
Our fathers supposed that we had enough when 
our territory extended to the Mississippi River; but 
a few years' growth and expansion satisfied them that 



Stephen A. Douglas 269 

we needed more, and the Louisiana territory, from 
the west bank of the Mississippi to the British 
possessions, was acquired. Then we acquired Ore- 
gon, then CaUfornia and New Mexico. We have 
enough now for the present ; but this is a young and 
growing nation. It swarms as often as a hive of bees ; 
and as new swarnis are turned out each year, there 
must be hives in which they can gather and make 
their honey. In less than fifteen years, if the same 
progress that has distinguished this cotmtry for the 
last fifteen years continues, every foot of vacant 
land between this and the Pacific Ocean, owned by 
the United States, will be occupied. Will you not 
continue to increase at the end of fifteen years as well 
as now? I tell you, increase, and multiply, and 
expand, is the law of this nation's existence. You 
cannot limit this great Republic by mere boundary 
lines, saying, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no 
farther." Any one of you gentlemen might as well 
say to a son twelve years old that he is big enough, 
and must not grow any larger; and in order to pre- 
vent his growth, put a hoop around him to keep him 
to his present size. What would be the result? 
Either the hoop must burst and be rent asunder, or 
the child must die. So it would be with this great 
nation. With our natural increase, growing with a 
rapidity unknown in any part of the globe, with the 
tide of emigration that is fleeing from despotism in 
the Old World to seek refuge in our own, there is 
a constant torrent pouring into this country that 
requires more land, more territory upon which to set- 
tle ; and just as fast as our interests and our destiny 



270 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

require additional territory in the North, in the 
South, or on the islands of the ocean, I am for 
it; and when we acquire it, will leave the people, 
according to the Nebraska Bill, free to do as they 
please on the subject of slavery and every other 
question. 

I trust now that Mr. Lincoln will deem himself 
answered on his four points. He racked his brain 
so much in devising these four questions that he 
exhausted himself, and had not strength enough to 
invent the others. As soon as he is able to hold a 
council with his advisers, Lovejoy, Famsworth, and 
Fred Douglass, he will frame and propound others. 
["Good, good."] You Black Republicans who say 
' ' good ' ' I have no doubt think that they are all good 
men. I have reason to recollect that some people 
in this country think that Fred Douglass is a very 
good man. The last time I came here to make a 
speech, while talking from the stand to you, people 
of Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage — 
and a magnificent one it was — drive up and take a 
position on the outs-'de of the crowd; a beautiful 
young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred 
Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the 
owner of the carriage acted as driver. I saw this in 
your own town. ["What of it?"] All I have to say 
of it is this, that if you. Black Republicans, think 
that the negro ought to be on a social equality with 
your wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage 
with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have 
perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred 
Douglass's kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now 



Stephen A. Douglas 271 

travelling in this part of the State, making speeches 
for his friend Lincoln as the champion of black men. 
["What have you to say against it?"] All I have to 
say on that subject is, that those of you who believe 
that the negro is your equal and ought to be on an 
equality with you socially, politically, and legally, 
have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course 
will vote for Mr. Lincoln. 

I have a word to say on Mr. Lincoln's answers 
to the interrogatories contained in my speech at 
Ottawa, and which he has pretended to reply to here 
to-day. Mr. Lincoln makes a great parade of the fact 
that I quoted a platform as having been adopted by 
the Black Republican party at Springfield in 1854, 
which, it turns out, was adopted at another place. 
Mr. Lincoln loses sight of the thing itself in his 
ecstasies over the mistake I made in stating the place 
where it was done. He thinks that that platform 
was not adopted on the right "spot." 

When I put the direct questions to Mr. Lincoln to 
ascertain whether he now stands pledged to that 
creed, — to the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive 
Slave law, a refusal to admit any more slave States 
into the Union, even if the people want them, a 
determination to apply the Wilmot Proviso, not 
only to all the territory we now have, but all that we 
may hereafter acquire,— he refused to answer; and 
his followers say, in excuse, that the resolutions upon 
which I based my interrogatories were not adopted 
at the ''right spot.'' Lincoln and his political friends 
are great on ''spots." In Congress, as a representa- 
tive of this State, he declared the Mexican war to be 



2 72 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

unjust and infamous, and would not support it, or 
acknowledge his own country to be right in the con- 
test, because he said that American blood was not 
shed on American soil in the ''right spot." And now 
he cannot answer the questions I put to him at 
Ottawa because the resolutions I read were not 
adopted at the ' ' right spot. ' ' It may be possible that 
I was led into an error as to the spot on which the 
resolutions I then read were proclaimed, but I was 
not, and am not, in error as to the fact of their form- 
ing the basis of the creed of the Republican part}^ 
when that party was first organized. I will state to 
you the evidence I had, and upon which I relied for 
my statement that the resolutions in question were 
adopted at Springfield on the 5th of October, 1854. 
Although I was aware that such resolutions had been 
passed in this district, and nearly all the Northern 
Congressional districts and county conventions, I 
had not noticed whether or not they had been 
adopted by any State convention. In 1856, a debate 
arose in Congress between Major Thomas L. Harris, 
of the Springfield District, and Mr. Norton, of the 
Joliet District, on political matters connected with 
our State, in the course of which Major Harris 
quoted those resolutions as having been passed by 
the first Republican State Convention that ever 
assembled in Illinois. I knew that Major Harris was 
remarkable for his accurac}^ that he was a very 
conscientious and sincere man, and I also noticed 
that Norton did not question the accuracy of this 
statement. I therefore took it for granted that it 
was so; and the other day when I concluded to use 



Stephen A. Douglas 273 

the resolutions at Ottawa I wrote to Charles H. 
Lanphier, editor of the State Register, at Springfield, 
calling his attention to them, telling him that I had 
been informed that Major Harris was lying sick at 
Springfield, and desiring him to call upon him and 
ascertain all the facts concerning the resolutions, 
the time and the place where they were adopted. 
In reply, Mr. Lanphier sent me two copies of his 
paper, which I have here. The first is a copy of the 
State Register, published at Springfield, Mr. Lincoln's 
own town, on the i6th of October, 1854, only eleven 
days after the adjournment of the Convention, from 
which I desire to read the following: 

" During the late discussions in this city, Lincoln made 
a speech, to which Judge Douglas replied. In Lincoln's 
speech he took the broad ground that, according to the 
Declaration of Independence, the whites and blacks are 
equal. From this he drew the conclusion, which he sev- 
eral times repeated, that the white man had no right to 
pass laws for the government of the black man without 
the nigger's consent. This speech of Lincoln's was heard 
and applauded by all the Abolitionists assembled in 
Springfield. So soon as Mr. Lincoln was done speaking, 
Mr. Codding arose, and requested all the delegates to 
the Black Republican Convention to withdraw into the 
Senate chamber. They did so; and after long delibera- 
tion, they laid down the following Abolition platform as 
the platform on which they stood. We call the particular 
attention of all our readers to it." 

Then follows the identical platform, word for word, 

which I read at Ottawa. Now, that was published 

in Mr. Lincoln's own town, eleven days after the 
18 



2 74 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Convention was held, and it has remained on record 
up to this day never contradicted. 

When I quoted the resolutions at Ottawa and 
questioned Mr. Lincoln in relation to them, he said 
that his name was on the committee that reported 
them, but he did not serve, nor did he think he 
served, because he was, or thought he was, inTazewell 
County at the time the Convention was in session. 
He did not deny that the resolutions were passed 
by the Springfield Convention. He did not know 
better, and evidently thought that they were; but 
afterward his friends declared that they had dis- 
covered that the 3^ varied in some respects from the 
resolutions passed by that Convention. I have 
shown you that I had good evidence for believing 
that the resolutions had been passed at Springfield. 
Mr. Lincoln ought to have known better; but not a 
word is said about his ignorance on the subject, 
whilst I, notwithstanding the circumstances, am 
accused of forgery. 

Now, I will show you that if I have made a mistake 
as to the place where these resolutions were adopted, 
— and when I get down to Springfield I will investi- 
gate the matter, and see whether or not I have, — 
that the principles they enunciate were adopted as 
the Black Republican platform ["white, white"], 
in the various counties and Congressional districts 
throughout the north end of the State in 1854. This 
platform was adopted in nearl}^ ever}^ county that 
gave a Black Republican majority for the Legislature 
in that year, and here is a man [pointing to Mr. Denio, 
who sat on the stand near Deacon Bross] who knows 



Stephen A. Douglas 275 

as well as any living man that it was the creed of the 
Black Republican party at that time. I would be wil- 
ling to call Denio as a witness, or any other honest man 
belonging to that party. I will now read the resolu- 
tions adopted at the Rockford Convention on the 30th 
of August, 1854, which nominated Washbume for Con- 
gress. You elected him on the following platform: 

" Resolved, That the continued and increasing aggres- 
sions of slavery in our country are destructive of the best 
rights of a free people, and that such aggressions cannot 
be successfully resisted without the united political ac- 
tion of all good men. 

''Resolved, That the citizens of the United States hold 
in their hands a peaceful, constitutional, and efficient 
remedy against the encroachments of the slave power, — 
the ballot box; and if that remedy is boldly and wisely 
applied, the principles of liberty and eternal justice will 
be established. 

" Resolved, That we accept this issue forced upon us by 
the slave power, and, in defence of freedom, will co- 
operate and be known as Republicans, pledged to the ac- 
complishment of the following purposes; 

"To bring the Administration of the Government back 
to the control of first principles; to restore Kansas and 
Nebraska to the position of Free Territories; to repeal 
and entirely abrogate the Fugitive Slave law ; to restrict 
slavery to those States in which it exists ; to prohibit the 
admission of any more Slave States into the Union; to 
exclude slavery from all the Territories over which the 
General Government has exclusive jurisdiction; and to 
resist the acquisition of any more Territories, unless the 
introduction of slavery therein forever shall have been 
prohibited. 



276 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

"Resolved, That in furtherance of these principles we 
will use such constitutional and lawful means as shall 
seem best adapted to their accomplishment, and that we 
will support no man for ofBce under the General or State 
Government who is not positively committed to the sup- 
port of these principles, and whose personal character and 
conduct is not a guarantee that he is reliable, and shall 
abjure all party allegiance and ties. 

''Resolved, That we cordially invite persons of all 
former political parties whatever, in favor of the object 
expressed in the above resolutions, to unite with us in 
carrying them into effect." 

Well, you think that is a very good platform, do 
you not? If you do, if you approve it now, and 
think it is all right, you will not join with those men 
who say I libel 3^ou by calling these your principles, 
will you ? Now, Mr. Lincoln complains ; Mr. Lincoln 
charges that I did you and him injustice by saying 
that this was the platform of your party. I am told 
that Washburne made a speech in Galena last night, 
in which he abused me awfully for bringing to light 
this platform, on which he was elected to Congress. 
He thought that you had forgotten it, as he, and Mr. 
Lincoln desires too. He did not deny but that you 
had adopted it, and that he had subscribed to and 
was pledged by it, but he did not think it was fair 
to call it up and remind the people that it was their 
platform. 

But I am glad to find that you are more honest 
in your Abolitionism than your leaders, by avowing 
that it is your platform, and right in your opinion. 

In the adoption of that platform, you not only 



Stephen A. Douglas 277 

declared that you would resist the admission of any 
more slave States, and work for the repeal of the 
Fugitive Slave law, but you pledged yourselves not 
to vote for any man for State or Federal offices who 
was not committed to these principles. You were 
thus committed. Similar resolutions to those were 
adopted in your county convention here, and now, 
with your admissions that they are your platform 
and embody your sentiments now as they did then, 
what do you think of Mr. Lincoln, your candidate 
for the United States Senate, who is attempting to 
dodge the responsibility of this platform, because 
it was not adopted in the right spot. I thought 
that it was adopted in Springfield; but it turns out 
it was not, that it was adopted at Rockford, and in 
the various counties which comprise this Congres- 
sional district. When I get into the next district 
I will show that the same platform was adopted 
there, and so on through the State, until I nail 
the responsibility of it upon the Black Republican 
party throughout the State. 

A voice: Could n't you modify, and call it brown? 

Mr. Douglas: Not a bit. I thought that you 
were becoming a little brown when your members in 
Congress voted for the Crittenden-Montgomeiy bill; 
but since you have backed out from that position 
and gone back to Abolitionism you are black, and 
not brown. 

Gentlemen, I have shown you what your plat- 
form was in 1854. You still adhere to it. The 
same platform was adopted by nearly all the counties 
where the Black Republican party had a majority 



278 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

in 1854. I wish now to call your attention to the 
action of your representatives in the Legislature 
when they assembled together at Springfield. In 
the first place, you must remember that this was the 
organization of a new party. It is so declared in 
the resolutions themselves, which say that you are 
going to dissolve all old party ties and call the new 
party Republican. The old Whig party was to 
have its throat cut from ear to ear, and the Demo- 
cratic party was to be annihilated and blotted out 
of existence, whilst in lieu of these parties the Black 
Republican party was to be organized on this Aboli- 
tion platform. You know who the chief leaders 
were in breaking up and destroying these two great 
parties. Lincoln on the one hand, and Trumbull on 
the other, being disappointed politicians, and having 
retired or been driven to obscurity by an outraged 
constituency because of their political sins, formed 
a scheme to Abolitionizc the two parties, and lead 
the old-line Whigs and old-line Democrats captive, 
bound hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. 
Giddings, Chase, Fred Douglass, and Lovejoy were 
here to christen them whenever they were brought 
in. Lincoln went to work to dissolve the old- 
line Whig party. Clay was dead; and although 
the sod was not yet green on his grave, this man 
undertook to bring into disrepute those great Com- 
promise measures of 1850, with which Clay and 
Webster were identified. Up to 1854 the old Whig 
party and the Democratic party had stood on a 
common platform so far as this slavery question was 
concerned. You Whigs and we Democrats differed 



Stephen A. Douglas 279 

about the bank, the tariff, distribution, the specie 
circular, and the sub-treasury, but we agreed on this 
slavery question, and the true mode of preserving 
the peace and harmony of the Union. The Com- 
promise measures of 1850 were introduced by Clay, 
were defended by Webster, and supported by Cass, 
and were approved by Fillmore, and sanctioned l^y 
the national men of both parties. They constituted 
a common plank upon which both Whigs and Demo- 
crats stood. In 1852 the Whig party, in its last 
National Convention at Baltimore, indorsed and 
approved these measures of Clay, and so did the 
National Convention of the Democratic party held 
that same year. Thus the old-line Whigs and the 
old-line Democrats stood pledged to the great prin- 
ciple of self-government, which guarantees to the 
people of each Territory the right to decide the 
the slavery question for themselves. In 1854, after 
death of Clay and Webster, Mr. Lincoln, on the 
part of the Whigs, undertook to Abolitionize the 
Whig party, by dissolving it, transferring the mem- 
bers into the Abolition camp, and making them 
train under Giddings, Fred Douglass, Lovejoy, Chase, 
Farnsworth, and other Abolition leaders. Trumbull 
undertook to dissolve the Democratic party by taking 
old Democrats into the Abolition camp. Mr. Lincoln 
was aided in his efforts by many leading Whigs 
throughout the State, your member of Congress, 
Mr. Washbume, being one of the most active. Trum- 
bull was aided by many renegades from the Demo- 
cratic party, among whom were John Wentworth, 
Tom Turner, and others, with whom you are familiar. 



28o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

[Mr. Turner, who was one of the moderators, 
here interposed, and said that he had drawn the 
resolutions which Senator Douglas had read.] 

Mr. Douglas : Yes, and Turner says that he drew 
these resolutions. ["Hurrah for Turner," "Hurrah 
for Douglas."] That is right; give Turner cheers 
for drawing the resolutions if you approve them. If 
he drew those resolutions, he will not deny that they 
are the creed of the Black Republican party. 

Mr. Turner: They are our creed exactly. 

Mr. Douglas: And yet Lincoln denies that he 
stands on them. Mr. Turner says that the creed of 
the Black Republican party is the admission of 
no more slave States, and yet Mr. Lincoln declares 
that he would not like to be placed in a position 
where he would have to vote for them. All I have 
to say to friend Lincoln is, that I do not think there 
is much danger of his being placed in such an em- 
barrassing position as to be obliged to vote on the 
admission of any more slave States. I propose, out 
of mere kindness, to relieve him from any such 
necessity. 

When the bargain between Lincoln and Trumbull 
was completed for Abolitionizing the Whig and 
Democratic parties, they "spread" over the State, 
Lincoln still pretetiding to be an old-line Whig, in 
order to "rope in" the Whigs, and Trumbull pre- 
tending to be as good a Democrat as he ever was, in 
order to coax the Democrats over into the Abolition 
ranks. They played the part that "decoy ducks" 
play down on the Potomac River. In that part 
of the country they make artificial ducks, and put 



Stephen A. Douglas 281 

them on the water in places where the wild ducks 
are to be found, for the purpose of decoying them. 
Well, Lincoln and Trumbull played the part of these 
"decoy ducks," and deceived enough old-line Whigs 
and old-line Democrats to elect a Black Republican 
Legislature. When that Legislature met, the first 
thing it did was to elect as Speaker of the House the 
very man who is now boasting that he wrote the 
Abolition platform on which Lincoln will not stand. 
I want to know of Mr. Turner whether or not, when 
he was elected, he was a good embodiment of 
Republican principles ? 

Mr. Turner: I hope I was then, and am now. 

Mr. Douglas: He swears that he hopes he was 
then, and is now. He wrote that Black Republican 
platform, and is satisfied with it now\ I admire and 
acknowledge Turner's honesty. Every man of you 
knows that what he says about these resolutions 
being the platform of the Black Republican party is 
true, and you also know that each one of these men 
who are shuffling and trying to deny it are only 
trying to cheat the people out of their votes for the 
purpose of deceiving them still more after the elec- 
tion. I propose to trace this thing a little further, 
in order that you can see what additional evidence 
there is to fasten this revolutionary platform upon 
the Black Republican party. When the Legislature 
assembled, there was a United States Senator to 
elect in the place of General Shields, and before 
they proceeded to ballot. Love joy insisted on laying 
down certain principles by which to govern the party. 
It has been published to the world and satisfactorily 



282 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

proven that there was, at the time the alliance was 
made between Trumbull and Lincoln to Abolitionize 
the two parties, an agreement that Lincoln should 
take Shields's place in the United States Senate, and 
Trumbull should have mine so soon as they could 
conveniently get rid of me. When Lincoln was 
beaten for Shields's place, in a manner I will refer 
to in a few minutes, he felt very sore and restive; 
his friends gnimbled, and some of them came out 
and charged that the most infamous treachery had 
been practiced against him; that the bargain was 
that Lincoln was to have had Shields's place, and 
Trumbull was to have waited for mine, but that 
Trumbvill, having the control of a few Abolitionized 
Democrats, he prevented them from voting for 
Lincoln, thus keeping him within a few votes of 
an election until he succeeded in forcing the party 
to drop him and elect Trumbull. Well, Trumbull 
having cheated Lincoln, his friends made a fuss, 
and in order to keep them and Lincoln quiet, the 
party were obliged to come forward, in advance, at 
the last State election, and make a pledge that they 
would go for Lincoln and nobody else. Lincoln 
could not be silenced in any other way. 

Now, there are a great many Black Republi- 
cans of you who do not know this thing was done. 
["White, white," and great clamor.] I wish to re- 
mind you that while Mr. Lincoln was speaking there 
was not a Democrat vulgar and blackguard enough 
to interrupt him. But I know that the shoe is 
pinching you. I am clinching Lincoln now, and you 
are scared to death for the result. I have seen this 



Stephen A. Douglas 283 

thing before. I have seen men make appointments 
for joint discussions, and the moment their man 
has been heard, try to interrupt and prevent a fair 
hearing of the other side. I have seen your mobs 
before, and defy your wrath. [Tremendous ap- 
plause.] My friends, do not cheer, for I need my 
whole time. The object of the opposition is to 
occupy my attention in order to prevent me from 
giving the whole evidence and nailing this double 
dealing on the Black Republican party. As I have 
before said, Lovejoy demanded a declaration of 
principles on the part of the Black Republicans of 
the Legislature before going into an election for 
United States Senator. He offered the following 
preamble and resolutions which I hold in my 
hand: 

"Whereas, Human slavery is a violation of the prin- 
ciples of natural and revealed rights; and whereas the 
fathers of the Revolution, fully imbued with the spirit of 
these principles, declared freedom to be the inalienable 
birthright of all men; and whereas the preamble to the 
Constitution of the United States avers that that instru- 
ment was ordained to establish justice, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; and 
whereas, in furtherance of the above principles, slavery 
was forever prohibited in the old Northwest Territory, and 
more recently in all that Territory lying west and north 
of the State of Missouri, by the act of the Federal Govern- 
ment; and whereas the repeal of the prohibition last 
referred to was contrary to the wishes of the people of 
Illinois, a violation of an implied compact long deemed 
sacred by the citizens of the United States, and a 



284 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

wide departure from the uniform action of the General 
Government in relation to the extension of slavery; 
therefore, 

''Resolved, by the House of Representatives, the Senate 
concurring therein, That our Senators in Congress be in- 
structed, and our Representatives requested, to introduce, 
if not otherwise introduced, and to vote for a bill to restore 
such prohibition to the aforesaid Territories, and also to 
extend a similar prohibition to all territory which now 
belongs to the United States, or which may hereafter 
come under their jurisdiction. 

" Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, 
and our Representatives requested, to vote against the 
admission of any State into the Union, the Constitution 
of which does not prohibit slavery, whether the territory 
out of which such State may have been formed shall have 
been acquired by conquest, treaty, purchase, or from 
original territory of the United States. 

"Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed, 
and our Representatives requested, to introduce and vote 
for a bill to repeal an Act entitled 'An Act respecting 
fugitives from justice and persons escaping from the 
service of their masters ' ; and, failing in that, for such a 
modification of it as shall secure the right of habeas corpus 
and trial by jury before the regularly constituted au- 
thorities of the State, to all persons claimed as owing 
service or labor." 

Those resolutions were introduced by Mr. Love joy 
immediately preceding the election of Senator. 
They declared, first, that the Wilmot Proviso must 
be applied to all territory north of 36 deg., 30 min. 
Secondly, that it must be applied to all territory 
south of 36 deg., 30 min. Thirdly, that it must be 



Stephen A. Douglas 285 

applied to all the territory now owned by the United 
States; and finally, that it must be applied to all 
territory hereafter to be acquired by the United 
States. The next resolution declares that no more 
slave States shall be admitted into this Union undei 
any circumstances whatever, no matter whether 
they are formed out of territory now owned by us 
or that we may hereafter acquire, by treaty, by 
Congress, or in any manner whatever. The next 
resolution demands the unconditional repeal of the 
Fugitive Slave law, although its unconditional re- 
peal wctdd leave no provision for carr3dng out that 
clause of the Constitution of the United States 
which guarantees the surrender of fugitives. If 
they could not get an unconditional repeal, they 
demanded that that law should be so modified as 
to make it as nearly useless as possible. Now, I 
want to show you who voted for these resolutions. 
When the vote was taken on the first resolution it 
was decided in the affirmative, — yeas 41, nays 32. 
You will find that this is a strict party vote, 
between the Democrats on the one hand and the 
Black Republicans on the other. [Cries of "White, 
white," and clamor.] I know your name, and 
always call things by their right name. The point 
I wish to call your attention to is this: that these 
resolutions were adopted on the 7th day of February, 
and that on the 8th they went into an election for a 
United States Senator, and that day every man who 
voted for these resolutions, with but two exceptions, 
voted for Lincoln for the United States Senate. 
["Give us their names."] I will read the names over 



286 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

to you if you want them, but I believe your object 
is to occupy my time. 

On the next resolution the vote stood — yeas ;^;^, 
nays 40; and on the third resolution — yeas 35, 
nays 47. I wish to impress it upon you that every 
man who voted for those resolutions, with but two 
exceptions, voted on the next day for Lincoln for 
United States Senator. Bear in mind that the 
members who thus voted for Lincoln were elected 
to the Legislature pledged to vote for no man for 
office under tlie State or Federal Government who 
was not committed to this Black Republican plat- 
form. They were all so pledged. Mr. Turner, 
who stands by me, and who then represented you, 
and who says that he wrote those resolutions, 
voted for Lincoln, w^hen he was pledged not to do so 
unless Lincoln w^as in favor of those resolutions. I 
now ask Mr. Turner [turning to Mr, Turner], did you 
violate your pledge in voting for Mr. Lincoln, or did 
he commit himself to your platform before you cast 
your vote for him ? 

I could go through the whole list of names here, 
and show you that all the Black Republicans in the 
Legislature, who voted for Mr. Lincoln, had voted 
on the day previons for these resolutions. For 
insta.ice, here are the names of Sargent and Little, 
of Jo Daviess and Carroll, Thomas J. Turner of 
Stephenson, Lawrence of Boone and McHenry, 
Swan of Lake, Pinckney of Ogle County, and 
Lyman of Winnebago. Thus you see every member 
from your Congressional district voted for Mr. 
Lincoln, and they were pledged not to vote for him 



Stephen A. Douglas 287 

unless he was committed to the doctrine of no more 
slave States, the prohibition of slavery in the 
Territories, and the repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. 
Mr. Lincoln tells you to-day that he is not pledged 
to any such doctrine. Either Mr. Lincoln was then 
committed to those propositions, or Mr. Turner 
violated his pledges to you when he voted for him. 
Either Lincoln was pledged to each one of those pro- 
positions, or else every Black Republican Representa- 
tive from this Congressional district violated his 
pledge of honor to his constituents by voting for him. 
I ask you which horn of the dilemma will you take ? 
Will you hold Lincoln up to the platform of his party 
or will 3^ou accuse every Representative you had in 
the Legislature of violating his pledge of honor to his 
constituents? There is no escape for you. Either 
Mr. Lincoln was committed to those propositions or 
your members ^dolated their faith. Take either 
horn of the dilemma you choose. There is no 
dodging the question; I want Lincoln's answer. 
He says he was not pledged to repeal the Fugitive 
Slave law, that he does not quite like to do it; he 
will not introduce a law to repeal it, but thinks there 
ought to be some law ; he does not tell what it ought 
to be; upon the whole, he is altogether undecided, 
and don't know what to think or do. That is the 
substance of his answer upon the repeal of the 
Fugitive Slave law. I put the question to him dis- 
tinctly, whether he indorsed that part of the Black 
Republican platfomi which calls for the entire 
abrogation and repeal of the Fugitive Slave law. 
He answers, No! that he does not indorse that; 



288 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

but he does not tell what he is for, or what he will 
vote for. His answer is, in fact, no answer at all. 
Why cannot he speak out, and say what he is for, 
and what he will do? 

In regard to there being no more slave States, he 
is not pledged to that. He would not like, he says, 
to be put in a position where he would have to vote 
one way or another upon that question. I pray 
you, do not put him in a position that would em- 
barrass him so much. Gentlemen, if he goes to the 
Senate, he may be put in that position, and then 
which way will he vote ? 

A voice : How will you vote ? 

Mr. Douglas: I will vote for the admission of 
just such a State as by the form of their constitution 
the people show the}^ want; if they want slavery, 
they shall have it; if they prohibit slavery, it shall 
be prohibited. They can form their institutions 
to please themselves, subject only to the Constitu- 
tion; and I, for one, stand ready to receive them 
into the Union. Why cannot your Black Repub- 
lican candidates talk out as plain as that when they 
are questioned? 

I do not want to cheat any man out of his vote. 
No man is deceived in regard to my principles if I 
have the power to express myself in terms explicit 
enough to convey my ideas. 

Mr. Lincoln made a speech when he was nomi- 
nated for the United States Senate which covers all 
these Abolition platforms. He there lays down a 
proposition so broad in its Abolitionism as to cover 
the whole ground. 



Stephen A. Douglas 289 

" In my opinion it [the slavery agitation] will not cease 
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A 
house divided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this 
government cannot endure permanently half slave and 
half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do ex- 
pect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one 
thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery 
will ari'est the further spread of it, and place it where the 
public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course 
of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it for- 
ward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, — 
old as well as new, North as well as South." 

There you find that Mr. Lincoln lays down the 
doctrine that this Union cannot endure divided as 
our fathers made it, with free and slave States. 
He says they must all become one thing, or all the 
other ; that they must all be free or all slave, or else 
the Union cannot continue to exist; it being his 
opinion that to admit any more slave States, to 
continue to divide the Union into free and slave 
States, will dissolve it. I want to know of Mr. 
Lincoln whether he will vote for the admission of 
another slave State. 

He tells you the Union cannot exist unless the 
States are all free or all slave; he tells you that he is 
opposed to making them all slave, and hence he is 
for making them all free, in order that the Union 
may exist; and yet he will not say that he will not 
vote against another slave State, knowing that the 
Union must be dissolved if he votes for it. I ask 
you if that is fair dealing? The true intent and 
inevitable conclusion to be drawn from his first 



'^9o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Springfield speech is, that he is opposed to the 
admission of any more slave States under any cir- 
cumstances. If he is so opposed, why not say so? 
If he beheves this Union cannot endure divided into 
free and slave States, that they must all become 
free in order to save the Union, he is bound as an 
honest man to vote against any more slave States. 
If he believes it, he is bound to do it. Show me 
that it is my duty, in order to save the Union, to do 
a particular act, and I will do it if the Constitution 
does not prohibit it. I am not for the dissolution 
of the Union under any circumstances. I will pur- 
sue no course of conduct that will give just cause for 
the dissolution of the Union. The hope of the 
friends of freedom throughout the world rests upon 
the perpetuity of this Union. The downtrodden 
and oppressed people who are suffering under 
European despotism all look with hope and anxiety 
to the American Union as the only resting place and 
permanent home of freedom and self-government. 

Mr. Lincoln says that he believes that this Union 
cannot continue to endure with slave States in it, 
and yet he will not tell you distinctly whether he 
will vote for or against the admission of any more 
slave States, but says he would not like to be put 
to the test. I do not think he will be put to the test. 
I do not think that the people of Illinois desire a 
man to represent them who would not like to be put 
to the test on the performance of a high constitutional 
duty. I will retire in shame from the Senate of the 
United States when I am not willing to be put to the 
test in the performance of my duty. I have been 



Stephen A. Douglas 291 

put to severe tests. I have stood by my principles 
in fair weather and in foul, in the sunshine and in the 
rain. I have defended the great principle of self- 
government here among you when Northern senti- 
ment ran in a torrent against me, and I have 
defended that same great principle when Southern 
sentiment came down like an avalanche upon me. 
I was not afraid of any test they put to me. I knew 
I was right; I knew my principles were sound; I 
knew that the people would see in the end that I 
had done right, and I knew that the God of heaven 
would smile upon me if I was faithful in the per- 
formance of my duty. 

Mr. Lincoln makes a charge of corruption against 
the Supreme Court of the United States, and two 
Presidents of the United States, and attempts to 
bolster it up by saying that I did the same against 
the Washington Union. Suppose I did make that 
charge of corruption against the Washington Union, 
when it was true, does that justify him in making a 
false charge against me and others? That is the 
question I would put. He says that at the time 
the Nebraska Bill was introduced, and before it was 
passed, there was a conspiracy between the judges 
of the Supreme Court, President Pierce, President 
Buchanan, and myself, by that bill and the decision 
of the court to break down the barrier and establish 
slavery all over the Union. Does he not know that 
that charge is historically false as against President 
Buchanan? He knows that Mr. Buchanan was at 
that time in England, representing this country with 
distinguished ability at the Court of St. James, that 



292 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

he was there for a long time before and did not 
return for a year or more after. He knows that to 
be true, and that fact proves his charge to be false 
as against Mr. Buchanan. Then, again, I wish to 
call his attention to the fact that at the time the 
Nebraska Bill was passed the Dred Scott case was 
not before the Supreme Court at all ; it was not upon 
the docket of the Supreme Court; it had not been 
brought there; and the judges in all probability 
knew nothing of it. Thus the history of the country 
proves the charge to be false as against them. As 
to President Pierce, his high character as a man of 
integrity and honor is enough to vindicate him from 
such a charge; and as to myself, I pronounce the 
charge an infamous lie, whenever and wherever made 
and by whomsoever made. I am willing that Mr. 
Lincoln should go and rake up every public act of 
mine, every measure I have introduced, report I 
have made, speech delivered, and criticise them; 
but when he charges upon me a corrupt conspiracy 
for the purpose of perverting the institutions of the 
country, I brand it as it deserves. I say the history 
of the country proves it to be false, and that it could 
not have been possible at the time. But now he 
tries to protect himself in this charge, because I 
made a charge against the Washington Union. 
My speech in the Senate against the Washington 
Union was made because it advocated a revolu- 
tionary doctrine, by declaring that the free States 
had not the right to prohibit slavery within their 
own limits. Because I made that charge against 
the Washington Union, Mr. Lincoln says it was a 



Stephen A. Douglas 293 

charge against Mr. Buchanan. Suppose it was: is 
Mr. Lincoln the peculiar defender of Mr. Buchanan? 
Is he so interested in the Federal Administration, 
and so bound to it, that he must jump to the rescue 
and defend it from every attack that I may make 
against it? I understand the whole thing. The 
Washington Union, under that most corrupt of all 
men, Cornelius Wendell, is advocating Mr. Lincoln's 
claim to the Senate. Wendell was the printer of the 
last Black Republican House of Representatives; 
he was a candidate before the present Democratic 
House, but was ignominiously kicked out; and then 
he took the money which he had made out of the 
public printing by means of the Black Republicans, 
bought the Washington Union, and is now publish- 
ing it in the name of the Democratic party, and 
advocating Mr. Lincoln's election to the Senate. 
Mr. Lincoln therefore considers an attack upon 
Wendell and his corrupt gang as a personal attack 
upon him. This only proves what I have charged, — 
that there is an alliance between Lincoln and his 
supporters and the Federal office-holders of this 
State, and the Presidential aspirants out of it, to 
break me down at home. 

Mr. Lincoln feels bound to come in to the rescue 
of the Washington Union. In that speech which I 
delivered in answer to the Washington Union, I 
made it distinctly against the Union, and against 
the Union alone. I did not choose to go beyond 
that. If I have reason to attack the President's 
conduct, I will do it in language that will not be mis- 
understood. When I differed with the President, I 



294 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

spoke out so that you all heard me. That question 
passed away; it resulted in the triumph of my 
principle, by allowing the people to do as they 
please ; and there is an end of the controversy, when- 
ever the great principle of self-government, — the 
right of the people to make their own Constitution, 
and come into the Union with slavery or without 
it, as they see proper, — shall again arise, you will 
find me standing firm in defence of that principle, 
and fighting whoever fights it. If Mr. Buchanan 
stands, as I doubt not he will, by the recommenda- 
tion contained in his message, that hereafter all 
State constitutions ought to be submitted to the 
people before the admission of the State into the 
Union, he will find me standing by him firmly, 
shoulder to shoulder, in carrying it out. I know 
Mr. Lincoln's object: he wants to divide the Demo- 
cratic party, in order that he may defeat me and get 
to the Senate. 

[Mr. Douglas's time here expired, and he stopped 
on the moment.] 



MR. LINCOLN S REJOINDER. 

My Friends: It will readily occur to you that I 
cannot, in half an hour, notice all the things that so 
able a man as Judge Douglas can say in an hour and 
a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be anything 
that he has said upon which }'ou would like to hear 
something from me, but which I omit to comment 
upon, you will bear in mind that it would be ex- 



Abraham Lincoln 295 

pecting an impossibility for me to go over his whole 
ground. I can but take up some of the points that he 
has dwelt upon, and employ my half -hour specially 
on them. 

The first thing I have to say to you is a word in 
regard to Judge Douglas's declaration about the 
"vulgarity and blackguardism" in the audience, — 
that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any 
Democrat while I was speaking. Now, I only wish, 
by way of reply on this subject, to say that while I 
was speaking, / used no "vulgarity or blackguard- 
ism" toward any Democrat. 

Now, my friends, I come to all this long portion of 
the Judge's speech, — ^perhaps half of it,- — which he 
has devoted to the various resolutions and plat- 
forms that have been adopted in the different 
counties in the different Congressional districts, and 
in the Illinois Legislature, which he supposes are at 
variance with the ])ositions I have assumed before 
you to-day. It is true that many of these resolu- 
tions are at variance with the positions I have here 
assumed. All I have to ask is that we talk reason- 
ably and rationally about it. I happen to know, 
the Judge's opinion to the contrary notwithstanding, 
that I have never tried to conceal my opinions, nor 
tried to deceive any one in reference to them. He 
may go and examine all the members who voted for 
me for United States Senator in 1855, after the elec- 
tion of 1854. They were pledged to certain things 
here at home, and were determined to have pledges 
from me; and if he will find any of these persons 
who will tell him anything inconsistent with what 



296 Lincoln and Dou<^las Debates 



&' 



I say now, I will resign, or rather retire from the race, 
and give him no more trouble. The plain truth is 
this: At the introduction of the Nebraska policy, 
we believed there was a new era being introduced in 
the history of the Republic, which tended to the 
spread and perpetuation of slavery. But in our 
opposition to that measure we did not agree with 
one another in everything. The people in the north 
end of the State were for stronger measures of op- 
position than we of the central and southern portions 
of the State, but we were all opposed to the Nebraska 
doctrine. We had that one feeling and that one 
sentiment in common. You at the north end met 
in your conventions and passed your resolutions. 
We in the middle of the State and farther south 
did not hold such conventions and pass the same 
resolutions, although we had in general a common 
view and a common sentiment. So that these meet- 
ings which the Judge has alluded to, and the resolu- 
tions he has read from, were local, and did not 
spread over the whole State. We at last met 
together in 1856, from all parts of the State, and we 
agreed upon a common platform. You, who held 
more extreme notions, either yielded those notions, 
or, if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield them 
practically, for the sake of embodying the opposition 
to the measures which the opposite party were 
pushing forward at that time. We met you then, 
and if there was anything yielded, it was for practical 
purposes. We agreed then upon a platform for the 
party throughout the entire State of Illinois, and 
now we are all bound, as a party, to that platform. 



Abraham Lincoln 297 

And I say here to you, if any one expects of me — 
in case of my election — that I will do anything 
not signified by our Republican platform and my 
answers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that 
person will be deceived. I do not ask for the vote 
of any one who supposes that I have secret purposes 
or pledges that I dare not speak out. Cannot the 
Judge be satisfied? If he fears, in the unfortunate 
case of my election, that my going to Washington 
will enable me to advocate sentiments contrary to 
those which I expressed when you voted for and 
elected me, I assure him that his fears are wholly 
needless and groundless. Is the Judge really afraid 
of any such thing? I '11 tell you what he is afraid of. 
He is afraid we 'II all pull together. This is what 
alarms him more than anything else. For my part, 
I do hope that all of us, entertaining a common 
sentiment in opposition to what appears to us a 
design to nationalize and perpetuate slavery, will 
waive minor differences on questions which either 
belong to the dead past or the distant future, and 
all pull together in this struggle. What are your 
sentiments ? If it be true that on the ground which 
I occupy — ground which I occupy as frankly and 
boldly as Judge Douglas does his, — my views, though 
partly coinciding with yours, are not as perfectly 
in accordance with your feelings as his are, I do say 
to you in all candor, go for him, and not for me. I 
hope to deal in all things fairl}^ with Judge Douglas, 
and with the people of the State, in this contest. 
And if I should never be elected to any office, I trust 
I may go down with no stain of falsehood upon my 



298 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

reputation, notwithstanding the hard opinions Judge 
Douglas chooses to entertain of me. 

The Judge has again addressed himself to the 
Abolition tendencies of a speech of mine made at 
Springfield in June last. I have so often tried to 
answer what he is always saying on that melancholy 
theme that I almost turn with disgust from the dis- 
cussion, — from the repetition of an answer to it. I 
trust that nearly all of this intelligent audience have 
read that speech. If you have, I may venture to 
leave it to you to inspect it closely, and see whether 
it contains any of those "bugaboos" which frighten 
Judge Douglas. 

The Judge complains that I did not fully answer 
his questions. If I have the sense to comprehend 
and answer those questions, I have done so fairly. 
If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully 
and fairly answer him, I aver I have not the sense 
to see how it is to be done. He says I do not 
declare I would in any event vote for the admission 
of a slave State into the Union. If I have been 
fairly reported, he will see that I did give an ex- 
plicit answer to his interrogatories ; I did not merely 
say that I would dislike to be put to the test, but I 
said clearly, if I were put to the test, and a Ter- 
ritory from which slavery had been excluded should 
present herself with a State constitution sanctioning 
slavery, — a most extraordinary thing, and wholly 
unlikely to happen, — I did not see how I could avoid 
voting for her admission. But he refuses to under- 
stand that I said so, and he wants this audience to 
understand that I did not say so. Yet it will be so 



Abraham Lincoln 299 

reported in the printed speech that he cannot help 
seeing it. 

He says if I should vote for the admission of a 
slave State I would be voting for a dissolution of 
the Union, because I hold that the Union cannot 
permanently exist half slave and half free. I 
repeat that I do not believe this government can 
endure permanently half slave and half free; yet I 
do not admit, nor does it at all follow, that the admis- 
sion of a single slave State will permanently fix the 
character and establish this as a universal slave na- 
tion. The Judge is very happy indeed at working up 
these quibbles. Before leaving the subject of answer- 
ing questions, I aver as my confident belief, w^hen you 
come to see our speeches in print, that you will find 
every question which he has asked me more fairly 
and boldly and fully answered than he has answered 
those which I put to him. Is not that so? The 
two speeches may be placed side by side, and I will 
venture to leave it to impartial judges whether his 
questions have not been more directly and circum- 
stantially answered than mine. 

Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the 
editor of the Washington Union, alone, of enter- 
taining a purpose to rob the States of their power to 
exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to 
say, and I make the direct issue, that he did not 
make his charge against the editor of the Union 
alone. I will undertake to prove by the record here 
that he made that charge against more and higher 
dignitaries than the editor of the Washington Union. 
I am quite aware that he w^as shirking and dodging 



300 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

around the form in which he put it, but I can make 
it manifest that he levelled his "fatal blow" against 
more persons than this Washington editor. Will 
he dodge it now by alleging that I am trying to 
defend Mr. Buchanan against the charge? Not at 
all. Am I not making the same charge myself? 
I am trying to show that you, Judge Douglas, are a 
witness on my side. I am not defending Buchanan, 
and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my opinion, 
when he made that charge, he had an eye farther 
north than he has to-day. He was then fighting 
against people who called him a Black Republican 
and an Abolitionist. It is mixed all through his 
speech, and it is tolerably manifest that his eye was 
a great deal farther north than it is to-day. The 
Judge says that though he made this charge, Toombs 
got up and declared there was not a man in the 
United States, except the editor of the Union, who 
was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that article. 
And thereupon I understand that the Judge with- 
drew the charge. Althotigh he had taken extracts 
from the newspaper, and then from the Lecompton 
Constitution, to show the existence of a conspiracy 
to bring about a "fatal blow," by which the States 
were to be deprived of the right of excluding slaver}^, 
it all went to pot as soon as Toombs got up and told 
him it was not true. It reminds me of the story that 
John Phoenix, the California railroad surveyor, tells. 
He says they started out from the Plaza to the Mis- 
sion of Dolores. They had two ways of determining 
distances. One was by a chain and pins taken over 
the ground. The other was by a "go-it-ometer,"— 



Abraham Lincoln 301 

an invention of his own, — a three-legged instrument, 
with which he computed a series of triangles between 
the points. At night he turned to the chain-man 
to ascertain what distance they had come, and found 
that by some mistake he had merely dragged the 
chain over the grounc', without keeping any record. 
By the " go-it- ometer," he found he had made ten 
miles. Being skeptical about this, he asked a 
drayman who was passing how far it was to the 
Plaza. The drayman replied it was just half a mile ; 
and the surveyor put it down in his book, — just as 
Judge Douglas says, after he had made his calcula- 
tions and computations, he took Toom.bs's state- 
ment. I have no doubt that after Judge Douglas 
had made his charge, he was as easily satisfied about 
its truth as the surveyor was of the drayman's 
statement of the distance to the Plaza. Yet it is a 
fact that the man who put forth all that matter 
which Douglas deemed a "fatal blow" at State sov- 
ereignty was elected by the Democrats as public 
printer. 

Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Douglas's 
speech of March 22, 1858, beginning about the 
middle of page 21, and reading to the bottom of 
page 24, and you will find the evidence on which I 
say that he did not make his charge against the 
editor of the Union alone. I cannot stop to read it, 
but I will give it to the reporters. Judge Douglas said : 

'*Mr. President, you here find several distinct proposi- 
tions advanced boldly by the Washington Union editori- 
ally, and apparently authoritatively, and every man who 



302 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

questions any of them is denounced as an Abolitionist, a 
Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that 
the primary object of ah government at its original in- 
stitution is the protection of persons and property; 
second, that the Constitution of the United States de- 
clares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to 
all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several 
States; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, 
whether organic or otherwise, which prohibit the citizens 
of one State from settling in another with their slave prop- 
erty, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct viola- 
tions of the original intention of the Government and 
Constitution of the United States; and, fourth, that the 
emancipation of the slaves of the Northern States was a 
gross outrage on the rights of property, inasmuch as it 
was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. 

"Remember that this article was published in the 
Union on the 17th of November, and on the i8th ap- 
peared the first article giving the adhesion of the Union 
to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words: 

" ' Kansas and her Constitution. — The vexed ques- 
tion is settled. The problem is solved. The dead point 
of danger is passed. All serious trouble to Kansas affairs 
is over and gone — ' 

"And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when 
you come to look into the Lecompton Constitution, you 
find the same doctrine incorporated in it which was put 
forth editorially in the Union. What is it? 

" 'Article 7, Section i. The right of property is be- 
fore and higher than any constitutional sanction ; and the 
right of the owner of a slave to such slave and its increase 
is the same and as invariable as the right of the owner of 
any property whatever.' 

"Then in the schedule is a provision that the 



Abraham Lincoln 303 

Constitution may be amended after 1864 by a two- thirds 
vote. 

" ' But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of 
property in the ownership of slaves.' 

' ' It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Con- 
stitution that they are identical in spirit with this au- 
thoritative article in the Washington Union of the day 
previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. 

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of 
November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton 
Constitution on the i8th of November, and this clause in 
the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has 
no right to prohibit slavery within its 1 mits, I saw that 
there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of 
the States of this Union." 

Here he says, "Mr. President, you here find 
several distinct propositions advanced boldly, and 
apparently authoritatively.'' By whose authority, 
Judge Douglas? Again, he says in another place, 
' ' It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton 
Constitution that they are identical in spirit with 
this authoritative article." By whose authority? Who 
do you mean to say authorized the publication of 
these articles? He knows that the Washington 
Union is considered the organ of the Administration. 
/ demand of Judge Douglas hy whose authority he 
meant to say those articles were published, if not 
by the authority of the President of the United 
States and his Cabinet? I defy him to show w^hom 
he referred to, if not to these high functionaries in 
the Federal Government. More than this, he says 
the articles in that paper and the provisions of the 



304 Lincoln and Douorlas Debates 



23' 



Lecompton Constitution are "identical," and, being 
identical, he argues that the authors are co-operat- 
ing and conspiring together. He does not use the 
word "conspiring," but what other construction can 
you put upon it ? He winds up with this : 

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of 
November, followed by the glorification of the Lecompton 
Constitution on the i8th of November, and this clause in 
the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a State has 
no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that 
there was a fatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of 
the States of the Union." 

I ask him if all this fuss was made over the editor 
of this newspaper. It would be a terribly ''fatal 
blow'' indeed which a single man could strike, when 
no President, no Cabinet officer, no member of Con- 
gress, was giving strength and efficienc}^ to the 
movement. Out of respect to Judge Douglas's good 
sense I must believe he did n't manufacture his idea 
of the "fatal" character of that blow out of such a 
miserable scapegrace as he represents that editor to 
be. But the Judge's eye is farther south now. 
Then, it was very peculiarl}^ and decidedly north. 
His hope rested on the idea of visiting the great 
"Black Republican" party, and making it the tail 
of his new kite. He knows he was then expecting 
from day to day to turn Republican, and place 
himself at the head of our organization. He has 
found that these despised "Black Republicans" 
estimate him by a standard which he has taught 
them none too well. Hence he is crawling back 



Abraham Lincoln 305 

into his old camp, and you will find him eventually 
installed in full fellowship among those whom he was 
then battling, and with whom he now pretends to 
be at such fearful variance. [Loud applause, and 
cries of "Go on, go on."] I cannot, gentlemen; 
my time has expired. 



THIRD JOINT DEBATE, AT JONESBORO, 
September 15, 1858. 

MR. Douglas's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: I appear before you 
to-day in ptirsuance of a previous notice, and have 
made arrangements with Mr. Lincohi to divide time, 
and discuss with him the leading pohtical topics 
that now agitate the country. 

Prior tj 1854 this country was divided into two 
great pohtical parties known as Whig and Demo- 
cratic. These parties differed from each other on 
certain questions which were then deemed to be 
important to the best interests of the Republic, 
Whigs and Democrats differed about a bank, the 
tariff, distribution, the specie circular and the sub- 
treasvuy. On those issues we went before the 
country and discussed the principles, objects, and 
measures of the two great parties. Each of the 
parties could proclaim its principles in Louisiana 
as well as in Massachusetts, in Kentucky as well as 
in Illinois. Since that period, a great revolution 
has taken place in the formation of parties, by which 
they now seem to be divided by a geographical line, 
a large party in the North being arrayed under the 
Abolition or Republican banner, in hostility to the 
Southern States, Southern people, and Southern 
institutions. It becomes important for us to in- 

306 



Stephen A. Douglas 307 

quire how this transformation of parties has occurred, 
made from those of national principles to geo- 
graphical factions. You remember that in 1850 
this country was agitated from its centre to its cir- 
cumference about this slavery question. It became 
necessary for the leaders of the great Whig party and 
the leaders of the great Democratic party to post- 
pone, for the time being, their particular disputes, 
and unite first to save the Union before they should 
quarrel as to the mode in which it was to he governed. 
During the Congress of 1 849-' 50, Henry Clay was 
the leader of the Union men, supported by Cass 
and Webster, and the leaders of the Democracy and 
the leaders of the Whigs, in opposition to Northern 
Abolitionists or Southern Disunionists. That great 
contest of 1850 resulted in the establishment of the 
Compromise measures of that year, which measures 
rested on the great principles that the people of each 
State and each Territory of this Union ought to be 
permitted to regulate their own domestic institu- 
tions in their own way, subject to no other limitation 
than that which the Federal Constitution imposes. 
I now wish to ask you whether that principle was 
right or wrong which guaranteed to every State and 
every community the right to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions to suit themselves. These 
measures were adopted, as I have previously said, 
by the joint action of the Union Whigs and Union 
Democrats in opposition to Northern Abolitionists 
and Southern Disunionists. In 1858, when the 
Whig party assembled, at Baltimore, in National 
Convention for the last time, they adopted the 



3o8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

principle of the Compromise measures of 1850 as 
their rule of party action in the future. One month 
thereafter the Democrats assembled at the same 
place to nominate a candidate for the presidency, 
and declared the same great principle as the rule of 
action by which the Democracy would be governed. 
The Presidential election of 1852 was fought on that 
basis. It is true that the Whigs claimed special 
merit for the adoption of those measures, because 
they asserted that their great Clay originated them, 
their godlike Webster defended them, and their 
Fillmore signed the bill making them the law of the 
land; but, on the other hand, the Democrats claimed 
special credit for the Democracy, upon the ground 
that we gave twice as many votes in both Houses of 
Congress for the passage of these measures as the 
Whig party. 

Thus you see that in the Presidential election of 
1852 the Whigs were pledged by their platform and 
their candidate to the principle of the Compromise 
measures of 1850, and the Democracy were likewise 
pledged by our principles, our platform, and our 
candidate to the same line of policy, to preserve 
peace and quiet between the different sections of this 
Union. Since that period the Whig party has been 
transformed into a sectional party, under the name 
of the Republican party, whilst the Democratic 
party continues the same national party it was at 
that day. All sectional men, all men of Abolition 
sentiments and principles, no matter whether they 
were old Abolitionists or had been Whigs or Demo- 
crats, rally under the sectional Republican banner, 



Stephen A. Douglas 309 

and consequently all national men, all Union -loving 
men, whether Whigs, Democrats, or by whatever 
name they have been known, ought to rally under 
the Stars and Stripes in defence of the Constitution 
as our fathers made it, and of the Union as it has 
existed under the Constitution. 

How has this departure from the faith of the 
Democracy and the faith of the Whig party been 
accomplished? In 1854, certain restless, ambitious, 
and disappointed politicians throughout the land 
took advantage of the temporary excitement created 
by the Nebraska Bill to try and dissolve the old 
Whig party and the old Democratic party, to 
Abolitionize their members, and lead them, bound 
hand and foot, captives into the Abolition camp. 
In the State of New York a convention was held by 
some of these men, and a platform adopted, every 
plank of which was as black as night, each one 
relating to the negro, and not one referring to the 
interests of the white man. That example was fol- 
lowed throughout the Northern States, the effort 
being made to combine all the free States in hostile 
array against the slave States. The men who thus 
thought that they could build up a great sectional 
party, and through its organization control the 
political destinies of this country, based all their 
hopes on the single fact that the North was the 
stronger division of the nation, and hence, if the 
North could be combined against the South, a sure 
victory awaited their efforts. I am doing no more 
than justice to the truth of history when I say that 
in this State, Abraham Lincoln, on behalf of the 



3IO Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Whigs, and Lyman Trumbull, on behalf of the 
Democrats, were the leaders who undertook to 
perform this grand scheme of Abolitionizing the two 
parties to which they belonged. They had a pri- 
vate arrangement as to what should be the politi- 
cal destiny of each of the contracting parties before 
they went into the operation. The arrangement 
was that Mr. Lincoln was to take the old -line Whigs 
with him, claiming that he was still as good a Whig 
as ever, over to the Abolitionists, and Mr. Trumbull 
was to run for Congress in the Belleville District, 
and, claiming to be a good Democrat, coax the old 
Democrats into the Abolition camp; and when, by 
the joint efforts of the Abolitionized Whigs, the 
Abolitionized Democrats, and the old-line Abolition 
and Free-soil party of this State, they should secure 
a majority in the Legislature, Lincoln was then to 
be made United States Senator in Shields's place, 
Trumbull remaining in Congress until I should be 
accommodating enough to die or resign, and give 
him a chance to follow Lincoln. That was a very 
nice little bargain so far as Lincoln and Trumbull 
were concerned, if it had been carried out in good 
faith and friend Lincoln had attained to senatorial 
dignity according to the contract. They went into 
the contest in every part of the State, calling upon 
all disappointed politicians to join in the crusade 
against the Democracy, and appealed to the pre- 
vailing sentiments and prejudices in all the northern 
counties of the State. In three Congressional dis- 
tricts in the north end of the State they adopted, 
as the platform of this new party thus formed by 



Stephen A. Douglas 311 

Lincoln and Trumbull in connection with the 
Abolitionists, all of those principles which aimed 
at a warfare on the part of the North against the 
South. They declared in that platform that the 
Wilmot Proviso was to be applied to all the Terri- 
tories of the United States, north as well as south 
of 36 deg. 30 min., and not only to all the territory 
we then had, but all that we might hereafter acquire ; 
that hereafter no more slave States should be ad- 
mitted into this Union, even if the people of such 
State desired slavery; that the Fugitive Slave law 
should be absolutely and unconditionally repealed; 
that slavery should be abolished in the District of 
Columbia; that the slave trade should be abolished 
between the different States; and, in fact, every 
article in their creed related to this slavery question, 
and pointed to a Northern geographical party in 
hostility to the Southern States of this Union. 
Such were their principles in northern Illinois. A 
little farther south they became bleached, and grew 
paler just in proportion as public sentiment mode- 
rated and changed in this direction. They were 
Republicans or Abolitionists in the north, anti- 
Nebraska men down about Springfield, and in this 
neighborhood they contented themselves with talk- 
ing about the inexpediency of the repeal of the 
Missouri Compromise. In the extreme northern 
counties they brought out men to canvass the 
State whose complexion suited their political creed ; 
and hence Fred Douglass, the negro, was to be 
found there, following General Cass, and attempt- 
ing to speak on behalf of Lincoln, Trumbull, and 



312 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Abolitionism, against that illustrious senator. Why, 
they brought Fred Douglass to Freeport, when I 
was addressing a meeting there, in a carriage driven 
by the white owner, the negro sitting inside with 
the white lady and her daughter. When I got 
through canvassing the northern counties that year, 
and progressed as far south as Springfield, I was met 
and opposed in discussion by Lincoln, Lovejoy, 
Trumbull, and Sidney Breese, who were on one side. 
Father Giddings, the high-priest of Abolitionism, 
had just been there, and Chase came about the time 
I left. ["Why didn't you shoot him?"] I did 
take a running shot at them; but as I was single- 
handed against the white, black, and mixed drove, 
I had to use a shotgun and fire into the crowd, 
instead of taking them off singly with a rifle. Trum- 
bull had for his lieutenants, in aiding him to Aboli- 
tionize the Democracy, such men as John Wentworth 
of Chicago, Governor Reynolds of Belleville, Sidney 
Breese of Carlisle, and John Dougherty of Union, 
each of whom modified his opinions to suit the 
locality he was in. Dougherty, for instance, would 
not go much further than to talk about the inex- 
pediency of the Nebraska Bill, whilst his allies at 
Chicago advocated negro citizenship and negro 
equality, putting the white man and the negro on 
the same basis under the law. Now, these men, 
four years ago, were engaged in a conspiracy to 
break down the Democracy; to-day they are again 
acting together for the same purpose! They do not 
hoist the same flag, they do not own the same 
principles or profess the same faith, but conceal 



Stephen A. Douglas 313 

their union for the sake of pohcy. In the northern 
counties, you find that all the conventions are called 
in the name of the Black Republican party; at 
Springfield, they dare not call a Republican con- 
vention, but invite all the enemies of the Democ- 
racy to unite ; and when they get down into Egypt, 
Trumball issues notices calling upon the '^Free 
Democracy'' to assemble and hear him speak. I 
have one of the handbills calling a Trumbull meeting 
at Waterloo the other day, which I received there, 
which is in the following language : 

" A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place in 
Waterloo, on Monday, Sept. 13th inst., whereat Hon. 
lyyman Trumbull, Hon. John Baker and others will ad- 
dress the people upon the different political topics of the 
day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to be 
present, and hear and determine for themselves. 

" The Monroe Free Democracy." 

What is that name of "Free Democrats " put forth 
for, unless to deceive the people, and make them 
believe that Trumbull and his followers are not the 
same party as that which raises the black flag of 
Abolitionism in the northern part of this State and 
makes war upon the Democratic party throughout 
the State? When I put that question to them at 
Waterloo on Saturday last, one of them rose and 
stated that they had changed their name for political 
effect, in order to get votes. There was a candid 
admission. Their object in changing their party 
organization and principles in different localities 
was avowed to be an attempt to cheat and deceive 



SH Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

some portion of the people until after the election. 
Why cannot a political party that is conscious of the 
rectitude of its purposes and the soundness of its 
principles declare them ever^^vhere alike? I would 
disdain to hold any political principles that I could 
not avow in the same terms in Kentucky that I 
declared in Illinois, in Charleston as well as in 
Chicago, in New Orleans as well as in New York. 
So long as we live under a Constitution common to 
all the States, our political faith ought to be as broad, 
as liberal, and just as that Constitution itself, and 
should be proclaimed alike in every portion of the 
Union. 

But it is apparent that our opponents find it neces- 
sary, for partisan effect, to change their colors in 
different counties in order to catch the popular 
breeze, and hope with these discordant materials 
combined together to secure a majority in the Legis- 
lature for the purpose of putting down the Demo- 
cratic party. This combination did succeed in 1854 
so far as to elect a majority of their confederates to 
the Legislature, and the first important act which 
they performed was to elect a Senator in the place 
of the eminent and gallant Senator Shields. His 
term expired in the United States Senate at that 
time, and he had to be crushed by the Abolition 
coalition for the simple reason that he would not 
join in their conspiracy to wage war against one 
half of the Union. That was the only objection to 
General Shields. He had served the people of his 
State with ability in the Legislature, he had served 
you with fidelity and ability as Auditor, he had per- 



Stephen A. Douglas 315 

formed his duties to the satisfaction of the whole 
country at the head of the Land Department at 
Washington, he had covered the State and the Union 
with immortal glory on the bloody fields of Mexico 
in defence of the honor of our flag, and yet he had to 
be stricken down by this unholy combination. And 
for what cause ? Merely because he would not join a 
combination of one half of the States to make war 
upon the other half, after having poured out his 
heart's blood for all the States of the Union. Trum- 
bull was put in his place by Abolitionism. How did 
Trumbull get there ? Before the Abolitionists would 
consent to go into an election for United States 
Senator they required all the members of this new 
combination to show their hands upon this question 
of Abolitionism. Lovejoy, one of their high-priests, 
brought in resolutions defining the Abolition creed, 
and required them to commit themselves on it by 
their votes, — yea or nay. In that creed, as laid 
down by Lovejoy, they declared, first, that the 
Wilmot Proviso must be put on all the Territories of 
the United States, north as well as south of 36 deg. 
30 min., and that no more territory should ever be ac- 
quired unless slavery was at first prohibited therein ; 
second, that no more States should ever be received 
into the Union tmless slavery was first prohibited, 
by constitutional provision, in such States; third, 
that the Fugitive Slave law must be immediately 
repealed, or, failing in that, then such amendments 
were to be made to it as would render it useless and 
inefficient for the objects for which it was passed, 
etc. The next day after these resolutions were 



3i6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

offered they were voted upon, part of them carried, 
and the others defeated, the same men who voted 
for them, with only two exceptions, voting soon after 
for Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the 
United States Senate. He came within one or two 
votes of being elected, but he could not quite get 
the number required, for the simple reason that his 
friend Trumbull, who was a party to the bargain 
by which Lincoln was to take Shields's place, con- 
trolled a few Abolitionized Democrats in the Legis- 
lature, and would not allow them all to vote for him, 
thus wronging Lincoln by peniiitting him on each 
ballot to be almost elected, but not quite, until he 
forced them to drop Lincoln and elect him (Trum- 
bull), in order to unite the party. Thus you find 
that although the Legislature was carried that 3^ear 
by the bargain between Trumbull, Lincoln, and the 
Abolitionists, and the union of these discordant 
elements in one harmonious party, yet Trumbull 
violated his pledge, and played a Yankee trick on 
Lincoln when they came to divide the spoils. Per- 
haps you would like a little evidence on this point. 
If you would, I will call Colonel James H. Matheny, 
of Springfield, to the stand, Mr. Lincoln's especial 
confidential friend for the last twenty years, and see 
what he will say upon the subject of this bargain. 
Matheny is now the Black Republican, or Abolition, 
candidate for Congress in the Springfield District 
against the gallant Colonel Harris, and is making 
speeches all over that part of the State against me 
and in favor of Lincoln, in concert with Trumbull. 
He ought to be a good witness, and I will read an 



Stephen A. Douglas 317 

extract from a speech which he made in 1856, when 
he was mad because his friend Lincoln had been 
cheated. It is one of numerous speeches of the 
same tenor that were made about that time, ex- 
posing this bargain between Lincoln, Trumbull, and 
the Abolitionists. Matheny then said: 

"The Whigs, Abolitionists, Know-Nothings, and rene- 
gade Democrats made a solemn compact for the purpose 
of carrying this State against the Democracy, on this 
plan: ist. That they would all combine and elect Mr. 
Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for 
the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that 
could be obtained into that body against the Democrats. 
2d. That when the Legislature should meet, the officers of 
that body, such as Speaker, clerks, door-keepers, etc., 
would be given to the Abolitionists; and 3d. That the 
Whigs were to have the United States Senator. That, 
accordingly, in good faith, Trumbull was elected to Con- 
gress, and his district carried for the Legislature, and, 
when it convened, the Abolitionists got all the officers of 
that body; and, thus far, the 'bond' was fairly executed. 
The Whigs, on their part, demanded the election of 
Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, that the 
bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the contract 
having already secured to themselves all that was called 
for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they refused to 
elect Mr. Lincoln, and the mean, low-lived, sneaking 
Trumbull succeeded, by pledging all that was required 
by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside, and foisting 
himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels of the 
Democracy, into the United States Senate : and thus it 
has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad bargain 
when he conspires or contracts with rogues." 



3i8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Matheny thought that his friend Lincoln made a 
bad bargain when he conspired and contracted with 
such rogues as Trumbull and his Abolition associates 
in that campaign. Lincoln was shoved off the 
track, and he and his friends all at once began to 
mope, became sour and mad, and disposed to tell, 
but dare not; and thus they stood for a long time, 
until the Abolitionists ccaxed and flattered him 
back by their assurances that he should certainly 
be a Senator in Douglas's place. In that way the 
Abolitionists have been enabled to hold Lincoln to 
the alliance up to this time, and now they have 
brought him int a fight r gainst me, and he is to see 
if he is again to be cheated by them. Lincoln, this 
tim.e, though, required more of them than a promise, 
and holds their bond, if not security, that Lov3Jv.y 
shall not cheat him as Trumbull did. 

When the Republican Convention assembled at 
Springfield, in June last, for the purpose of nominat- 
ing State officers only, the Abolitionists could not 
get Lincoln and his friends into it until they would 
pledge themselvjs that Lincoln should be their can- 
didate for the Senr te ; and you will find, in proof 
of this, that that Convention passed a resolution 
unanimously declaring that Abraham Line In was 
the "first, last, and only choice" of the Republicans 
for United States Senator. He was not willing to 
have it understood that he was merely their first 
choice, or their last choice, but their only choice. 
The Black Republican party had nobody else. 
Browning was nowhere ; Governor Bissell was of no 
account; Archie Williams was not to be taken into 



Stephen A. Douglas 319 

consideration; John Wentworth was not worth 
mentioning; John M. Palmer was degraded; and 
their party presented the extraordinary spectacle 
of having but one, — the first, the last, and only — ■ 
choice for the Senate. Suppose that Lincoln should 
die, what a horrible condition the Republican party 
would be in ! They would have nobody left. They 
hav^ n^ other choice, and it was necessary for them 
to put themselves before the world in this ludicrous, 
ridiculous attitude of having no other choice, in 
order to quiet Lincoln's suspicions, and assure hitn 
that he was not to be cheated by Lovejoy, and the 
trickery by which Trumbull outgeneralled him. 
Well, gentlemen, I think they will have a nice time 
of it before they get through. I do not intend to 
give them any chance to cheat Lincoln at all this 
time. I intend to reliev^ him of all anxiety upon 
that subject, and spare them the mortification of 
more exposures of contracts violated, and the 
pledged honor of rogues forfeited. 

But I wish to invite your attention to the chief 
points at issue between Mr. Lincoln and myself in 
this discussion. Mr. Lincoln, knowing that he was 
to be the candidate of his party, on account of the 
arrangement of which I have already spoken, know- 
ing that he was to receive the nomination of the 
Convention for the United States Senate, had his 
speech, accepting that nomination, all written and 
committed to memory ready to be delivered the 
moment the nomination was announced. Accord- 
ingly^, when it was made, he was in readiness, and 
delivered his speech, a portion of which I will read 



320 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

in order that I may state his political principles 
fairly, by repeating them in his own language: 

' ' We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was 
instituted for the avowed object, and with the confident 
promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation; under 
the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only 
not ceased, but has constantly augmented. I believe it 
will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and 
passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' 
I believe this government cannot endure permanently, 
half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be 
dissolved, I do not expect the house to fall; but I do 
expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one 
thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery 
will arrest the spread of it, and place it where the public 
mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ulti- 
mate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward 
until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, North 
as well as South." 

There you have Mr. Lincoln's first and main 
proposition, upon which he bases his claims, stated 
in his own language. He tells you that this Re- 
public cannot endure permanently divided into 
slave and free States, as our fathers made it. He 
says that they must all become free or all become 
slave, that they must all be one thing or all be the 
other, or this government cannot last. Why can it 
not last, if we will execute the government in the 
same spirit and upon the same principles upon which 
it is founded? Lincoln, by his proposition, says to 
the South : "If you desire to maintain your institu- 
tions as they are now, vou must not be satisfied 



Stephen A. Douglas 321 

with minding your own business, but you must 
invade Illinois and all the other Northern States, 
establish slavery in them, and make it universal"; 
and in the same language he says to the North: 
"You must not be content with regulating your own 
affairs and minding your own business, but if you 
desire to maintain your freedom, you must invade 
the Southern States, abolish slavery there and 
ever}^vhere, in order to have the States all one 
thing or all the other." I say that this is the in- 
evitable and irresistible result of Mr. Lincoln's 
argimient, inviting a warfare between the North 
and the South, to be carried on with ruthless ven- 
geance until the one section or the other shall be 
driven to the wall, and become the victim of the 
rapacity of the other. What good would follow 
such a system of warfare? Suppose the North 
should succeed in conquering the South, how much 
would she be the gainer? or suppose the South 
should conquer the North, could the Union be pre- 
served in that way ? Is this sectional warfare to be 
waged between the Northern States and Southern 
States until they all shall become uniform in their 
local and domestic institutions, merely because Mr. 
Lincoln says that a house divided against itself 
cannot stand, and pretends that this Scriptural 
quotation, this language of our Lord and Master, is 
applicable to the American Union and the American 
Constitution ? Washington and his compeers, in the 
convention that framed the Constitution, made 
this government divided into free and slave' States. 
It was composed then of thirteen sovereign and 



32 2 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

independent States, each having sovereign authority 
over its local and domestic institutions, and all 
bound together by the Federal Constitution. Mr. 
Lincoln likens that bond of the Federal Constitu- 
tion, joining free and slave States together, to a 
house divided against itself, and says that it is con- 
trary to the law of God, and cannot stand. When 
did he learn, and by what authority does he pro- 
claim, that this Government is contrary to the 
law of God and cannot stand? It has stood thus 
divided into free and slave States from its organi- 
zation up to this day. During that period we have 
increased from four millions to thirty milhons of 
people; we have extended our territory from the 
Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean; we have acquired 
the Floridas and Texas, and other territory sufh- 
cient to double our geographical extent; we have 
increased in population, in wealth, and in power 
beyond any example on earth ; we have risen from 
a weak and feeble power to become the terror and 
admiration of the civilized world; and all this has 
been done under a Constitution which Mr. Lincoln, 
in substance, says is in violation of the law of God, 
and under a Union divided into free and slave 
States, which Mr. Lincoln thinks, because of such 
division, cannot stand. Surely Mr. Lincoln is a 
wiser man than those who framed the Government. 
Washington did not believe, nor did his compatriots, 
that the local laws and domestic institutions that 
were well adapted to the Green Mountains of Ver- 
mont were suited to the rice plantations of South 
Carolina; they did not believe at that day that in a 



Stephen A. Douglas 323 

republic so broad and expanded as this, containing 
such a variety of climate, soil, and interest, that 
uniformity in the local laws and domestic institu- 
tions was either desirable or possible. They believed 
then, as our experience has proved to us now, that 
each locality, having different interests, a different 
climate, and different surroundings, required differ- 
ent local laws, local policy, and local institutions, 
adapted to the wants of that locality. Thus our 
government was formed on the principle of diversity 
in the local institutions and laws, and not on that 
of uniformity. 

As my time flies, I can only glance at these points, 
and not present them as fully as I would wish, be- 
cause I desire to bring all the points in controversy 
between the two parties before you, in order to have 
Mr. Lincoln's reply. He makes war on the decision 
of the Supreme Court in the case known as the Dred 
Scott case. I wish to say to you, fellow-citizens, 
that I have no war to make on that decision, or any 
other ever rendered by the Supreme Court. I am 
content to take that decision as it stands delivered 
by the highest judicial tribunal on earth, — a tribunal 
established by the Constitution of the United States 
for that purpose; and hence that decision becomes 
the law of the land, binding on you, on me, and on 
every other good citizen, whether we like it or not. 
Hence I do not choose to go into an argument to 
prove before this audience whether or not Chief 
Justice Taney understood the law better than 
Abraham Lincoln. 

Mr. Lincoln objects to that decision, first and 



324 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

mainly, because it deprives the negro of the rights of 
citizenship. I am as much opposed to his reason 
for that objection as I am to the objection itself. 
I hold that a negro is not and never ought to be 
a citizen of the United States. I hold that this 
government was made on the white basis, by white 
men, for the benefit of white men and their posterity 
forever, and should be administered by white men 
and none others. I do not believe that the Al- 
mighty made the negro capable of self-government. 
I am aware that all the Abolition lecturers that you 
find travelling about through the country are in the 
habit of reading the Declaration of Independence to 
prove that all men were created equal, and endowed 
by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, 
among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. Mr. Lincoln is very much in the habit 
of following in the track of Love joy in this particular, 
by reading that part of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence to prove that the negro was endowed by 
the Almighty with the inalienable right of equality 
with white men. Now, I say to you, my fellow 
citizens, that in my opinion the signers of the 
Declaration had no reference to the negro whatever 
when they declared all men to be created equal. 
They desired to express by that phrase white men, 
men of European birth and European descent, and 
had no reference either to the negro, the savage 
Indians, the Fejee, the Malay, or any other inferior 
and degraded race, when they spoke of the equality 
of men. One great evidence that such was their 
understanding is to be found in the fact that at that 



Stephen A. Douglas 325 

time every one of the thirten colonies was a slave- 
holding colony, every signer of the Declaration 
represented a slaveholding constituency, and we 
know that not one of them emancipated his slaves, 
much less offered citizenship to them, when they 
signed the Declaration; and yet, if they intended to 
declare that the negro was the equal of the white 
man, and entitled by divine right to an equality 
with him, they were bound, as honest men, that 
day and hour to have put their negroes on an 
equality with themselves. Instead of doing so, 
with uplifted eyes to heaven they implored the 
divine blessing upon them, during the seven years' 
bloody war they had to fight to maintain that 
Declaration, never dreaming that they were violat- 
ing divine law by still holding the negroes in bondage 
and depriving them of equality. 

My friends, I am in favor of preserving this govern- 
ment as our fathers made it. It does not follow by 
any means that because a negro is not your equal 
or mine, that hence he must necessarily be a slave. 
On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to 
extend to the negro every right, every privilege 
every immunity, which he is capable of enjoying, 
consistent with the good of society. When you ask 
me what these rights are, what their nature and ex- 
tent is, I tell you that that is a question which each 
State of this Union must decide for itself, Illinois 
has already decided the question. We have de- 
cided that the negro must not be a slave within our 
limits; but we have also decided that the negro 
shall not be citizen within our limits; that he shall 



326 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

not vote, hold office, or exercise any political rights. 
I maintain that Illinois, as a sovereign State, has a 
right thus to fix her policy with reference to the 
relation between the white man and the negro; but 
while we had that right to decide the question for 
ourselves, we must recognize the same right in Ken- 
tucky and in every other State to make the same 
decision, or a different one. Having decided our 
own policy with reference to the black race, we must 
leave Kentucky and Missouri and every other State 
perfectly free to make just such a decision as they 
see proper on that question. 

Kentucky has decided that question for herself. 
She has said that within her limits a negro shall not 
exercise any political rights, and she also said that 
a portion of the negroes under the laws of that State 
shall be slaves. She had as much right to adopt 
that as her policy as we had to adopt the contrary 
for our policy. New York has decided that in that 
State a negro may vote if he has $250 worth of 
property, and if he owns that much he may vote 
upon an equality with the white man. I, for one, 
am utterly opposed to negro suffrage an^^where and 
under any circumstances; yet, inasmuch as the 
Supreme Court have decided in the celebrated Dred 
Scott case that a State has a right to confer the 
privilege of voting upon free negroes, I am not going 
to make war upon New York because she has 
adopted a policy repugnant to my feelings. But 
New York must mind her own business, and kee]) 
her negro suffrage to herself, and not attempt to 
force it upon us. 



Stephen A. Douglas 327 

In the State of Maine they have decided that a 
negro may vote and hold office on an equality with 
a white man. I had occasion to say to the senators 
from Maine, in a discussion, last session, that if they 
thought that the white people within the limits of 
their State were no better than negroes, I would not 
quarrel with them for it, but they must not say that 
my white constituents of Illinois were no better than 
negroes, or we would be sure to quarrel. 

The Dred Scott decision covers the whole question, 
and declares that each State has the right to settle 
this question of suffrage for itself, and all questions 
as to the relations between the white man and the 
negro. Judge Taney expressly lays down the doc- 
trine. I receive it as law, and I say that while 
those States are adopting regulations on that subject 
disgusting and abhorrent, according to my views, I 
will not make war on them if they will mind their 
own business and let us alone. 

I now come back to the question, Why cannot this 
Union exist forever, divided into free and slave 
States, as our fathers made it? It can thus exist if 
each State will carry out the principles upon which 
our institutions were founded; to wit, the right of 
each State to do as it pleases, without meddling with 
its neighbors. Just act upon that great principle, 
and this Union will not only live forever, but it will 
extend and expand until it covers the whole con- 
tinent, and makes this confederacy one grand, 
ocean-bound Republic. We must I'car in mind 
that we are yet a young nation, growing with a 
rapidity unequalled in the history of the world, that 



328 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

our natural increase is great, and that the emigra- 
tion from the Old World is increasing, requiring us 
to expand and acquire new territory from time to 
time, in order to give our people land to live upon. 
If we live upon the principle of State rights and 
State sovereignty, each State regulating its own 
affairs and minding its own business, we can go on 
and extend indefinitely, just as fast and as far as we 
need the territory. The time may come, indeed has 
now come, when our interests would be advanced 
by the acquisition of the island of Cuba. When we 
get Cuba we must take it as we find it, leaving the 
people to decide the question of slavery for them- 
selves, without interference on the part of the 
Federal Government or of any State of this Union. 
So, when it becomes necessary to acquire any por- 
tion of Mexico or Canada, or of this continent or the 
adjoining islands, we must take them as we find 
them, leaving the people free to do as they please, — 
to have slavery or not, as they choose. I never 
have inquired and never will inquire whether a new 
State applying for admission has slavery or not for 
one of her institutions. If the constitution that 
is presented be the act and deed of the people, and 
embodies their will, and they have the requisite 
population, I will admit them, with slavery or with- 
out it, just as that people shall determine. My 
objection to the Lecompton Constitution did not 
consist in the fact that it made Kansas a slave State. 
I would have been as much opposed to its admission 
under such a constitution as a free State as I was 
opposed to its admission under it as a slave State. 



Stephen A. Douglas 329 

I hold that that was a question which the people 
had a right to decide for themselves, and that no 
power on earth ought to have interfered with that 
decision. In my opinion, the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion was not the act and deed of the people of Kan- 
sas, and did not embody their will; and the recent 
election in that Territory, at which it was voted 
down by nearly ten to one, shows conclusively that 
I was right in saying, when the Constitution was 
presented, that it was not the act and deed of the 
people, and did not embody their will. 

If we wish to preserve our institutions in their 
purity, and transmit them unimpaired to our latest 
postetit}^, we must preserve with religious good 
faith that great principle of self-government which 
guarantees to each and every State, old and new, 
the right to make just such constitutions as they 
desire, and come into the Union with their ovrn 
constitution, and not one palmed upon them. 
Whenever you sanctioji the doctrine that Congress 
may crowd a constitution down the throats of an 
unwilling people, against their consent, you will 
subvert the great fundamental principle upon which 
all our free institutions rest. In the future I have 
no fear that the attempt Mill ever be made. Presi- 
dent Buchanan declared in his annual message that 
hereafter the rule adopted in the Minnesota case, 
requiring a constitution to be submitted to the 
people, should be folloAved in all future cases; and 
if he stands by that recommendation, there will be 
no division in the Democratic party on that prin- 
ciple in the future. Hence, the great mission of the 



330 Lincoln and Doufj^las Debates 



i:^' 



Democracy is to unite the fraternal feeling of the 
whole country, restore peace and quiet, by teaching 
each State to mind its own business, and regulate 
its own domestic affairs, and all to unite in carrying 
out the Constitution as our fathers made it, and 
thus to preserve the Union and render it perpetual 
in all time to come. Why should we not act as our 
fathers who made the government? There was no 
sectional strife in Washington's army. They were 
all brethren of a common confederacy; they fought 
under a common flag that they might bestow upon 
their posterity a common destiny; and to this end 
they poured out their blood in common streams, and 
shared, in some instances, a common grave. 



MR. LINCOLN S REPLY. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: There is very much in 
the principles that Judge Douglas has here enunci- 
ated that I most cordially approve, and over which 
I shall have no controversy with him. In so far as 
he has insisted that all the States have the right to 
do exactly as they please about all their domestic 
relations, including that of slavery, I agree entirely 
with him. He places me wrong in spite of all I can 
tell him, though I repeat it again and again, in- 
sisting that I have no difference with him upon this 
subject. I have made a great many speeches, some 
of which have been printed, and it will be utterly 
impossible for him to find anything that I have ever 
put in print contrary to what I now say upon this 



Abraham Lincoln 331 

subject. I hold myself under constitutional obli- 
gations to allow the people in all the States, without 
interference, direct or indirect, to do exactly as they 
please; and I deny that I have any inclination to 
interfere with them, even if there were no such con- 
stitutional obligation. I can only say again that I 
am placed improperly — altogether improperly, in 
spite of all I can say — ^when it is insisted that I 
entertain any other view or purposes in regard to 
that matter. 

While I am upon this subject, I will make some 
answers briefly to certain propositions that Judge 
Douglas has put. He says, "Why can't this Union 
endure permanently half slave and half free?" I 
have said that I supposed it could not, and I will 
try, before this new audience, to give briefly some 
of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. An- 
other form of his question is, "Why can't we let it 
stand as our fathers placed it?" That is the exact 
difficulty betw^een us. I say that Judge Douglas 
and his friends have changed it from the position in 
which our fathers originally placed it. I say, in 
the way our father's originally left the slavery 
question, the institution was in the course of ulti- 
mate extinction, and the public mind rested in the 
belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. 
I say when this government was first established it 
was the policy of its founders to prohibit the spread 
of slavery into the new Territories of the United 
States, where it had not existed. But Judge Doug- 
las and his friends have broken up that policy, and 
placed it upon a new basis, by which it is to become 



332 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

national and perpetual. All I have asked or de- 
sired anywhere is that it should be placed back 
again upon the basis that the fathers of our govern- 
ment originally placed it upon. I have no doubt 
that it would become extinct, for all time to come, 
if we but readopted the policy of the fathers, by re- 
stricting it to the limits it has already covered, — 
restricting it from the new Territories. 

I do not wish to dwell at great length on this 
branch of the subject at this time, but allow me to 
repeat one thing that I have stated before. Brooks 
■ — the man who assaulted Senator Simmer on the floor 
of the Senate, and who was complimented with din- 
ners, and silver pitchers, and gold-headed canes, and 
a good many other things for that feat — in one of his 
speeches declared that when this government was 
originally established, nobody expected that the in- 
stitution of slavery would last until this day. That 
was but the opinion of one man, but it was such an 
opinion as we can never get from Judge Douglas or 
anybody in favor of slavery, in the North, at all. 
You can sometimes get it from a Southern man. 
He said at the same time that the framers of our 
government did not have the knowledge that ex- 
perience has taught us; that experience and the 
invention of the cotton-gin have taught us that the 
perpetuation of slavery is a necessity. He insisted, 
therefore, upon its being changed from the basis 
upon which the fathers of the government left it to 
the basis of its perpetuation and nationalization. 

I insist that this is the difference between Judge 
Douglas and myself, — that Judge Douglas is helping 



Abraham Lincoln 333 

that change along. I insist upon this government 
being placed where our fathers originally placed it. 

I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw 
the evidences on the statute books of Congress of a 
policy in the origin of government to divide slavery 
and freedom by a geographical line ; that he saw an 
indisposition to maintain that policy, and therefore 
he set about studying up a way to settle the institu- 
tion on the right basis, — the basis which he thought 
it ought to have been placed upon at first; and in 
that speech he confesses that he seeks to place it, 
not upon the basis that the fathers placed it upon, 
but upon one gotten up on "original principles." 
When he asks me why we cannot get along with it 
in the attitude where our fathers placed it, he had 
better clear up the evidences that he has himself 
changed it from that basis, that he has himself been 
chiefly instrumental in changing the policy of the 
fathers. Any one who will read his speech of the 
2 2d of last March will see that he there makes an 
open confession, showing that he set about fixing 
the institution upon an altogether different set of 
principles. I think I have fully answered him when 
he asks me why we cannot let it alone upon the 
basis where our fathers left it, by showing that he has 
himself changed the whole policy of the government 
in that regard. 

Now, fellow -citizens, in regard to this matter 
about a contract that was made between Judge 
Trumbull and myself, and all that long portion of 
Judge Douglas's speech on this subject, — I wish 
simply to say what I have said to him before, that 



334 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

he cannot know whether it is true or not, and I do 
know that there is not a word of truth in it. And I 
have told him so before. I don't want any harsh 
language indulged in, but I do not know how to deal 
with this persistent insisting on a story that I know 
to be utterly without truth. It used to be a fashion 
amongst men that when a charge was made, some 
sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, 
and if no proof was found to exist, the charge was 
dropped. I don't know how to meet this kind of an 
argument. I don't want to have a fight with Judge 
Douglas, and I have no way of making an argument 
up into the consistency of a corn-cob and stopping 
his mouth with it. All I can do is, good-humoredly 
to say that, from the beginning to the end of all that 
story about a bargain between Judge Trumbull and 
myself, there is not a word of truth in it. I can only 
ask him to show some sort of evidence of the truth 
of his story. He brings for^vard here and reads 
from what he contends is a speech by James H. 
Matheny, charging such a bargain between Trum- 
bull and myself. My own opinion is that Matheny 
did do some such immoral thing as to tell a story 
that he knew nothing about. I believe he did. I 
contradicted it instantly, and it has been contra- 
dicted by Judge Trumbull, while nobody has pro- 
duced any proof, because there is none. Now, 
whether the speech which the Judge brings forward 
here is really the one Matheny made, I do not know, 
and I hope the Judge will pardon me for doubting 
the genuineness of this document, since his produc- 
tion of those Springfield resolutions at Ottawa. I 



Abraham Lincoln 335 

do not wish to dwell at any great length upon this 
matter. I can say nothing w^hen a long story like 
this is told, except it is not true, and demand that 
he who insists upon it shall produce some proof. 
That is all any man can do, and I leave it in that 
way, for I know of no other way of dealing with it. 

The Judge has gone over a long accoimt of the 
old Whig and Democratic parties, and it connects 
itself with this charge against Trumbull and myself. 
He says that they agreed upon a compromise in re- 
gard to the slavery question in 1850; that in a 
National Democratic Convention resolutions were 
passed to abide by that compromise as a finality 
upon the slavery question. He also says that the 
Whig party in National Convention agreed to abide 
by and regard as a finality the Compromise of 1850. 
I understand the Judge to be altogether right about 
that; I understand that part of the history of the 
country as stated by him to be correct. I recollect 
that I, as a member of that party, acquiesced in that 
compromise. I recollect in the Presidential election 
which followed, when we had General Scott up for 
the presidency, Judge Douglas was around berating 
us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does to- 
day, — not a bit of difference. I have often heard 
him. We could do nothing when the old Whig 
party was alive that was not Abolitionism, but it 
has got an extremely good name since it has passed 
away. 

When that Compromise was made it did not re- 
peal the old Missouri Compromise. It left a region 
of United States territor}^ half as large as the present 



33^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

territory of the United States, north of the line of 
36 degrees 30 minutes, in which slavery was pro- 
hibited by Act of Congress. This Compromise did 
not repeal that one. It did not affect or propose to 
repeal it. But at last it became Judge Douglas's 
duty, as he thought (and I find no fault with him), 
as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, to 
bring in a bill for the organization of a territorial 
government, — first of one, then of two Territories 
north of that line. When he did so, it ended in 
his inserting a provision substantially repeahng the 
Missouri Compromise. That was because the Com- 
promise of 1850 had not repealed it. And now I ask 
why he could not have let that Compromise alone? 
We were quiet from the agitation of the slavery 
question. We were making no fuss about it. All 
had acquiesced in the Compromise measures of 1850, 
We never had been seriously disturbed by any 
Abolition agitation before that period. When he 
came to form governments for the Territories north 
of the line of 36 degrees 30 minutes, why could he 
not have let that matter stand as it was standing? 
Was it necessary to the organization of a Territory? 
Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line, and had 
been organized as a Territory and come into the 
Union as a State without disturbing that Com- 
promise. There was no sort of necessity for 
destroying it to organize these Territories. But, 
gentlemen, it would take up all my time to meet all 
the little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to 
show that the Missouri Compromise was repealed 
by the Compromise of 1850. My own opinion is.. 



Abraham Lincoln 337 

that a careful investigation of all the arguments 
to sustain the position that that Compromise was 
virtually repealed by the Compromise of 1850 would 
show that they are the merest fallacies. I have the 
report that Judge Douglas first brought into Con- 
gress at the time of the introduction of the Nebraska 
Bill, which in its original form did not repeal the 
Missouri Compromise, and he there expressly stated 
that he had forborne to do so because it had not 
been done by the Compromise of 1850. I close this 
part of the discussion on my part by asking him the 
question again, "Why, when we had peace under 
the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let 
it alone?" 

In complaining of what I said in my speech at 
Springfield, in which he says I accepted my nomi- 
nation for the senatorship (where, by the way, he 
is at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find no 
acceptance in it), he again quotes that portion in 
which I said that "a house divided against itself 
cannot stand." Let me say a word in regard to that 
miatter. 

He tries to persuade us that there must be a 
variety in the different institutions of the States of 
the Union; that that variety necessarily proceeds 
from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the 
country, and the difference in the natural features 
of the States. I agree to all that. Have these very 
matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us? 
Not at all. Have we ever had any quarrel over 
the fact that they have laws in Louisiana designed 
to regulate the commerce that springs from the 



33^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

production of sugar? Or because we have a dif- 
ferent class relative to the production of flour in this 
State? Have they produced any differences? Not 
at all. They are the very cements of this Union. 
They don't make the house a house divided against 
itself. They are the props that hold up the house 
and sustain the Union. 

But has it been so with this element of slaver}-'? 
Have we not always had quarrels and difficulties over 
it ? And when will we cease to have quarrels over it ? 
Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while 
to observe that we have generally had comparative 
peace upon the slavery question, and that there has 
been no cause for alarm until it was excited by the 
effort to spread it into new territory. Whenever 
it has been limited to its present bounds, and there 
has been no effort to spread it, there has been peace. 
All the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from 
efforts to spread it over more territory. It was thus 
at the date of the Missouri Compromise. It was so 
again with the annexation of Texas; so with the 
territory acquired by the Mexican war; and it is so 
now. Whenever there has been an effort to spread 
it, there has been agitation and resistance. Now, 
1 appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my 
political friends), as national men, whether we have 
reason to expect that the agitation in regard to this 
subject will cease while the causes that tend to 
reproduce agitation are actively at work? Will not 
the same cause that produced agitation in 1820, when 
the Missouri Compromise was formed, that which 
produced the agitation upon the annexation of 



Abraham Lincoln 339 

Texas, and at other times, work out the same 
results always? Do you think that the nature of 
man will be changed, that the same causes that pro- 
duced agitation at one time will not have the same 
effect at another? 

This has been the result so far as my observation 
of the slavery question and my reading in history 
extends. What right have we then to hope that the 
trouble will cease, — that the agitation will come to 
an end, — until it shall either be placed back where 
it originally stood, and where the fathers originally 
placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shall entirely 
master all opposition ? This is the view I entertain, 
and this is the reason why I entertained it, as Judge 
Douglas has read from my Springfield speech. 

Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel 
myself under some sort of obligation to mention. 
Judge Douglas has here to-day — in a ver)^ rambling 
way, I was about saying — spoken of the platforms 
for which he seeks to hold me responsible. He says, 
"Why can't you come out and make an open avowal 
of principles in all places alike?" and he reads from 
an advertisement that he says was used to notify the 
people of a speech to be made by Judge Trumbull 
at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to 
know whether we cannot speak frankly and man- 
fully, as he and his friends do. How, I ask, do his 
friends speak out their own sentiments? A Con- 
vention of his party in this State met on the 21st of 
April at Springfield, and passed a set of resolutions 
which they proclaim to the country as their plat- 
form. This does constitute their platform, and it is 



340 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

because Judge Douglas claims it is his platform — 
that these are his principles and purposes — that he 
has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments 
"frankly and manfully." On the gth of June 
Colonel John Dougherty, Governor Reynolds, and 
others, calling themselves National Democrats, met 
in Springfield and adopted a set of resolutions which 
are as easily understood, as plain and as definite in 
stating to the country and to the world what they 
believed in and would stand upon, as Judge Douglas's 
platform. Now, what is the reason that Judge 
Douglas is not willing that Colonel Dougherty and 
Governor Reynolds should stand upon their own 
written and printed platform as well as he upon his ? 
Why must he look farther than their platform when 
he claims himself to stand by his platform ? 

Again, in reference to our platform: On the i6th 
of June the Republicans had their Convention and 
published their platform, which is as clear and 
distinct as Judge Douglas's. In it they spoke their 
principles as plainly and as definitely to the world. 
What is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing 
I should stand upon that platform? Why must he 
go around hunting for some one who is supporting me 
or has supported me at some time in his life, and who 
has said something at some time contrary to that 
platform? Does the Judge regard that rule as a 
good one ? If it turn out that the rule is a good one 
for me — that I am responsible for any and every 
opinion that any man has expressed who is my 
friend, — then it is a good rule for him. I ask, is it 
not as good a rule for him as it is for me? In my 



Abraham Lincoln 341 

opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do 
you think differently, Judge ? 

Mr. Douglas: I do not. 

Mr. Lincoln: Judge Douglas says he does not 
think differently. I am glad of it. Then can he tell 
me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six 
years ago, and insisting that they were my platform, 
notwithstanding my protest that they are not, and 
never were my platform, and my pointing out the 
platform of the State Convention which he delights 
to say nominated me for the Senate? I cannot see 
what he means by parading these resolutions, if it is 
not to hold me responsible for them in some way. 
If he says to me here that he does not hold the rule 
to be good, one way or the other, I do not com- 
prehend how he could answer me more fully if he 
answered me at greater length. I will therefore put 
in as my answer to the resolutions that he has 
hunted up against me, what I, as a lawyer, would 
call a good plea to a bad declaration. I understand 
that it is a maxim of law that a poor plea may be a 
good plea to a bad declaration. I think that the 
opinions the Judge brings from those who support 
me, yet differ from me, is a bad declaration against 
me ; but if I can bring the same things against him, I 
am putting in a good plea to that kind of declaration, 
and now I propose to try it. 

At Freeport, Judge Douglas occupied a large part 
of his time in producing resolutions and documents of 
various sorts, as I understood, to make me somehow 
responsible for them ; and I propose now doing a little 
of the same sort of thing for him. In 1850 a very 



342 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

clever gentleman by the name of Thompson Camp- 
bell, a personal friend of Judge Douglas and myself, 
a political friend of Judge Douglas and opponent of 
mine, was a candidate for Congress in the Galena 
District. He was interrogated as to his views on 
this same slavery question. I have here before me 
the interrogatories, and Campbell's answers to them. 
I will read them: 

Interrogatories. 

"ist. Will you, if elected, vote for and cordially sup- 
port a bill prohibiting slavery in the Territories of the 
United States? 

"2d. Will you vote for and support a bill abolishing 
slavery in the District of Columbia? 

"3d. Will you oppose the admission of any Slave 
States which may be formed out of Texas or the Terri- 
tories ? 

"4th. Will you vote for and advocate the repeal of 
the Fugitive Slave law passed at the recent session of 
Congress ? 

"5th. Will you advocate and vote for the election of 
a Speaker of the House of Representatives who shall be 
willing to organize the committees of that House so as to 
give the Free States their just influence in the business of 
legislation? 

"6th. What are your views, not only as to the con- 
stitutional right of Congress to prohibit the slave-trade 
between the States, but also as to the expediency of exer- 
cising that right immediately?" 

Campbell's Reply. 

"To the first and second interrogatories, I answer un- 
equivocally in the affirmative. 



Abraham Lincoln 343 

"To the third interrogatory I reply, that I am opposed 
to the admission of any more Slave States into the Union, 
that may be formed out of Texas or any other Territory. 

"To the fourth and fifth interrogatories I unhesita- 
tingly answer in the affirmative. 

' ' To the sixth interrogatory I reply, that so long as the 
Slave States continue to treat slaves as articles of com- 
merce, the Constitution confers power on Congress to pass 
laws regulating that peculiar COMMERCE, and that the 
protection of Human Rights imperatively demands the 
interposition of every constitutional means to prevent 
this most inhuman and iniquitous traffic. 

" T. Campbell." 

I want to say here that Thompson Campbell was 
elected to Congress on that platform, as the Demo- 
cratic candidate in the Galena District, against 
Martin P. Sweet. 

Judge Douglas : Give me the date of the letter. 

Mr. Lincoln : The time Campbell ran was in 1850. 
I have not the exact date here. It was some time 
in 1850 that these interrogatories were put and the 
answer given. Campbell was elected to Congress, 
and served out his term. I think a second election 
came up before he served out his term, and he was 
not re-elected. Whether defeated or not nomi- 
nated, I do not know. [Mr. Campbell was nomi- 
nated for re-election by the Democratic party, by 
acclamation.] At the end of his term his very good 
friend Judge Douglas got him a high office from 
President Pierce, and sent him off to California. Is 
not that the fact? Just at the end of his term in 
Congress it appears that our mutual friend Judge 



344 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Douglas got our mutual friend Campbell a good 
office, and sent him to California upon it. And not 
only so, but on the 27th of last month, when Judge 
Douglas and myself spoke at Freeport in joint dis- 
cussion, there was his same friend Campbell, come 
all the way from California, to help the Judge beat 
me; and there was poor Martin P. Sweet standing 
on the platform, trying to help poor me to be elected. 
That is true of one of Judge Douglas's friends. 

So again, in that same race of 1850, there was a 
Congressional Convention assembled at Joliet, and 
it nominated R. S. Molony for Congress, and unani- 
mously adopted the following resolution : 

''Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to 
the extension of slavery; and while we would not make 
such opposition a ground of interference with the interests 
of the States where it exists, yet we moderately but 
firmly insist that it is the duty of Congress to oppose its 
extension into Territory now free, by all means compat- 
ible with the obligations of the Constitution, and with 
good faith to our sister States ; that these principles were 
recognized by the Ordinance of 1787, which received the 
sanction of Thomas Jefferson, who is acknowledged by 
all to be the great oracle and expounder of our faith." 

Subsequently the same interrogatories were pro- 
pounded to Dr. Molony which had been addressed to 
Campbell as above, with the exception of the 6th, 
respecting the interstate slave trade, to which Dr. 
Molony, the Democratic nominee for Congress, 
replied as follows: 

"I received the written interrogatories this day, and, as 
you will see by the La Salle Democrat and Ottawa Free 



Abraham Lincoln 345 

Trader, I took at Peru on the 5th, and at Ottawa on the 
7th, the affirmative side of interrogatories ist and 2d; 
and in relation to the admission of any more Slave States 
from Free Territory, my position taken at these meetings, 
as correctly reported in said papers, was emphatically and 
distinctly opposed to it. In relation to the admission of 
any more Slave States from Texas, whether I shall go 
against it or not will depend upon the opinion that I may 
hereafter form of the true meaning and nature of the reso- 
lutions of annexation. If, by said resolutions, the honor 
and good faith of the nation is pledged to admit more 
Slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may apply for 
the admission of such State, then I should, if in Congress, 
vote for their admission. But if not so pledged and 
bound by sacred contract, then a bill for the admission of 
more Slave States from Texas would never receive my 
vote. 

" To your fourth interrogatory I answer most decidedly 
in the affirmative, and for reasons set forth in my reported 
remarks at Ottawa last Monday. 

"To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the affirma- 
tive most cordially, and that I will use my utmost exertions 
to secure the nomination and election of a man who will 
accomplish the objects of said interrogatories. I most 
cordially approve of the resolutions adopted at the Union 
meeting held at Princeton on the 27th September ult. 
" Yours, etc., R. S. Molony." 

All I have to say in regard to Dr. Molony is that 
he was the regularly nominated Democratic candi- 
date for Congress in his district ; was elected at that 
time; at the end of his term was appointed to a 
land-oflfice at Danville. (I never heard anything 
of Judge Douglas's instrumentality in this.) He 



346 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

held this office a considerable time, and when we 
were at Freeport the other day there were handbills 
scattered about notif3dng the public that after our 
debate was over R. S. Molony would make a Demo- 
cratic speech in favor of Judge Douglas. That is all 
I know of my own personal knowledge. It is added 
here to this resolution, and truly I believe, that — 

"Among those who participated in the Joliet Conven- 
tion, and who supported its nominee, with his platform 
as laid down in the resolution of the Convention and in 
his reply as above given, we call at random the following 
names, all of which are recognized at this day as leading 
Democrats : 

"Cook County, — E. B. Williams, Charles McDonell, 
Amo Voss, Thomas Hoyne, Isaac Cook." 

I reckon we ought to except Cook. 

" F. C. Sherman. 

"Will,— Joel A. Matteson, S. W. Bowen. 

"Kane,— B. F. Hall, G. W. Renwick, A. M. Herrington, 
Elijah Wilcox. 

"McHenry,— W. M. Jackson, Enos W. Smith, Neil 
Donnelly. 

"La Salle, — John Hise, William Reddick." 

William Reddick! another one of Judge Douglas's 
friends that stood on the stand with him at Ottawa, 
at the time the Judge says my knees trembled so that 
I had to be carried away. The names are all here : 

"Du Page,— Nathan Allen. 
"De Kalb,— Z. B. Mayo." 



I 



Abraham Lincoln 347 

Here is another set of resolutions which I think 
are apposite to the matter in hand. 

On the 28th of February of the same year a Demo- 
cratic District Convention was held at Naperville to 
nominate a candidate for Circuit Judge. Among 
the delegates were Bowen and Kelly of Will; 
Captain Naper, H. H. Cody, Nathan Allen, of Du 
Page; W. M. Jackson, J. M. Strode, P. W. Piatt, and 
Enos W. Smith of McHenry; J. Horsman and others 
of Winnebago, Colonel Strode presided over the 
Convention. The following resolutions were unani- 
mously adopted, — the first on motion of P. W. Piatt, 
the second on motion of William M. Jackson: 

"Resolved, That this Convention is in favor of theWilmot 
Proviso, both in Principle and Practice, and that we know 
of no good reason why any person should oppose the 
largest latitude in Free Soil, Free Territory and Free 
Speech. 

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the 
time has arrived when all men should he free, whites as 
well as others." 

Judge Douglas : What is the date of those resolu- 
tions ? 

Mr. Lincoln: I understand it was in 1850, but I 
do not know it. I do not state a thing and say I 
know it, when I do not. But I have the highest 
belief that this is so. I know of no way to arrive at 
the conclusion that there is an error in it. I mean 
to put a case no stronger than the truth will allow. 
But what I was going to comment upon is an extract 
from a newspaper in De Kalb County; and it strikes 



34^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

me as being rather singular, I confess, under the 
circumstances. There is a Judge Mayo in that 
county, who is a candidate for the Legislature, for 
the purpose, if he secures his election, of helping to 
re-elect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a news- 
paper [De Kalb County Sentinel], and in that paper 
I find the extract I am going to read. It is part of 
an editorial article in which he was electioneering as 
fiercely as he could for Judge Douglas and against 
me. It was a curious thing, I think, to be in such a 
paper. I will agree to that, and the Judge may 
make the most of it : 

" Our education has been such that we have been rather 
in favor of the equality of the blacks; that is, that they should 
enjoy all the privileges of the whites where they reside. We 
are aware that this is not a very popular doctrine. We 
have had many a confab with some who are now strong 
'Republicans,' we taking the broad ground of equality, 
and they the opposite ground. 

' ' We were brought up in a State where blacks were 
voters, and we do not know of any inconvenience result- 
ing from it, though perhaps it would not work as well 
where the blacks are more numerous. We have no doubt 
of the right of the whites to guard against such an evil, if 
it is one. Our opinion is that it would be best for all 
concerned to have the colored population in a State by 
themselves [in this I agree with him]; but if within the 
jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means they 
should have the right to have their Senators and Representa- 
tives in Congress, and to vote for President. With us 
'worth makes the man, and want of it the fellow.' We 
have seen many a ' nigger ' that we thought more of than 
some white men." 



Abraham Lincoln 349 

That is one of Judge Douglas's friends. Now, I 
do not want to leave myself in an attitude where 
I can be misrepresented, so I will say I do not think 
the Judge is responsible for this article; but he is 
quite as responsible for it as I would be if one of my 
friends had said it. I think that is fair enough. 

I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a 
Democratic State Convention in Judge Douglas's 
own good State of Vermont, that I think ought to 
be good for him too : 

" Resolved, That liberty is a right inherent and inalien- 
able in man, and that herein all men are equal. 

"Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Federal 
Government to abolish slavery in the several States, but 
we do claim for it Constitutional power perpetually to 
prohibit the introduction of slavery into territory now 
free, and abolish it wherever, under the jurisdiction of 
Congress, it exists. 

''Resolved, That this power ought immediately to be 
exercised in prohibiting the introduction and existence of 
slavery in New Mexico and California, in abolishing 
slavery and the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, 
on the high seas, and wherever else, under the Constitu- 
tion, it can be reached. 

"Resolved, That no more Slave States should be ad- 
mitted into the Federal Union. 

"Resolved, That the Government ought to return to its 
ancient policy, not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, 
but to limit, localize, and discourage slavery." 

At Freeport I answered several interrogatories 
that had been propounded to me by Judge Douglas 
at the Ottawa meeting. The Judge has not yet seen 



350 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

fit to find any fault with the position that I took in 
regard to those seven interrogatories, which were 
certainly broad enough, in all conscience, to cover 
the entire ground. In my answers, which have been 
printed, and all have had the opportunity of seeing, 
I take the ground that those who elect me must 
expect that I will do nothing which will not be in 
accordance with those answers. I have some right 
to assert that Judge Douglas has no fault to find 
with them. But he chooses to still try to thrust 
me upon different ground, without paying any atten- 
tion to my answers, the obtaining of which from me 
cost him so much trouble and concern. At the same 
time I propounded four interrogatories to him, 
claiming it as a right that he should answer as many 
interrogatories for me as I did for him, and I would 
reserve myself for a future instalment when I got 
them ready. The Judge, in answering me upon 
that occasion, put in what I suppose he intends as 
answers to all four of my interrogatories. The first 
one of these interrogatories I have before me, and it 
is in these words : 

"Question i. If the people of Kansas shall, by means 
entirely unobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a 
State constitution, and ask admission into the Union 
under it, before they have the requisite number of in- 
habitants according to the English bill," — some ninety- 
three thousand, — " will you vote to admit them?" 

As I read the Judge's answer in the newspaper, and 
as I remember it as pronounced at the time, he does 
not give any answer which is equivalent to yes or 



Abraham Lincoln 351 

no —I will or I won't. He answers at very con- 
siderable length, rather quarrelling with me for asking 
the question, and insisting that Judge Trumbull had 
done something that I ought to say something about 
and finally getting out such statements as induce 
me to infer that he means to be understood he will, 
m that supposed case, vote for the admission of 
Kansas. I only bring this foi-ward now for the pur- 
pose of saying that if he chooses to put a different 
construction upon his answer, he may do it. But 
if he does not, I shall from this time forward assume 
that he will vote for the admission of Kansas in dis- 
regard of the Enghsh bill. He has the right to 
remove any misunderstanding I may have. I only 
mention it now, that I may hereafter assume this 
to be the true construction of his answer, if he does 
not now choose to correct me. 

The second interrogatory that I propounded to 
him was this: 

''Question 2. Can the people of a United States Terri- 
tory, m any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen 
of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior 
to the formation of a State Constitution?" 

To this Judge Douglas answered that they can 
lawfully exclude slavery from the Territory' prior 
to the formation of a constitution. He goes on to 
tell us how it can be done. As I understand him 
he holds that it can be done by the Territorial Legis- 
lature refusing to make any enactments for the pro- 
tection of slavery in the Territory, and especially by 
adopting unfriendly legislation to it. For the sake 



352 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

of clearness, I state it again : that they can exclude 
slavery from the Territory, ist, by withholding what 
he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it 
in the way of legislation; and, 2d, by unfriendly 
legislation. If I rightly understand him, I wish to 
ask your attention for a while to his position. 

In the first place, the Supreme Court of the 
United States has decided that an}^ Congressional 
prohibition of slavery in the Territories is uncon- 
stitutional; that they have reached this proposition 
as a conclusion from their former proposition, that 
the Constitution of the United States expressly 
recognizes property in slaves, and from that other 
Constitutional provision, that no person shall be 
deprived of property without due process of law. 
Hence they reach the conclusion that as the Con- 
stitution of the United States expressly recognizes 
property in slaves, and prohibits any person from 
being deprived of property without due process of 
law, to pass an Act of Congress by which a man who 
owned a slave on one side of a line would be de- 
prived of him if he took him on the other side, is 
depriving him of that property without due process 
of law. That I understand to be the decision of 
the Supreme Court. I understand also that Judge 
Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision; and 
the difficulty is, how is it possible for any power to 
exclude slavery from the Territory, unless in viola- 
tion of that decision ? That is the difficulty. 

In the Senate of the United States, in 1850, Judge 
Trumbull, in a speech substantially, if not directly, 
put the same interrogatory to Judge Douglas, as to 



J 



Abraham Lincoln 353 

whether the people of a Territory had the lawful 
power to exclude slavery prior to the formation of 
a constitution. Judge Douglas then answered at 
considerable length, and his answer will be found in 
the Congressional Globe, under date of June 9th, 1856. 
The Judge said that whether the people could ex- 
clude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution 
or not was a question to be decided by the Supreme 
Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by 
the Congressional Globe, in a variety of forms, all 
running to the same thing in substance, — that it 
was a question for the Supreme Court. I maintain 
that when he says, after the Supreme Court have 
decided the question, that the people may yet ex- 
clude slavery by any means whatever, he does 
virtually say that it is not a question for the Supreme 
Court. He shifts his ground. I appeal to you 
whether he did not say it was a question for the 
Supreme Court? Has not the Supreme Court 
decided that question ? When he now says the peo- 
ple niay exclude slavery, does he not make it a 
question for the people ? Does he not virtually shift 
his ground and say that it is not a question for the 
court, but for the people? This is a very simple 
proposition, — a very plain and naked one. It seems 
to me that there is no difficulty in deciding it. In a 
variety of ways he said that it was a question for the 
Supreme Court. He did not stop then to tell us 
that, whatever the Supreme Court decides, the people 
can by withholding necessary "police regulations" 
keep slavery out. He did not make any such 
answei I submit to you now whether the new 



354 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

state of the case has not induced the Judge to sheer 
away from his original ground. Would not this be 
the impression of every fair-minded man ? 

I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot 
enter a new country without police regulations is 
historically false. It is not true at all. I hold that 
the history of this country shows that the institu- 
tion of slavery was originally planted upon this 
continent without these "police regulations" which 
the Judge now thinks necessary for the actual estab- 
lishment of it. Not only so, but is there not another 
fact : how came this Dred Scott decision to be made ? 
It was made upon the case of a negro being taken 
and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory, 
claiming his freedom because the Act of Congress 
prohibited his being so held there. Will the Judge 
pretend that Dred Scott was not held there without police 
regulations f There is at least one matter of record 
as to his having been held in slavery in the Territory, 
not only without police regulations, but in the teeth 
of Congressional legislation supposed to be valid at 
the time. This shows that there is vigor enough 
in slavery to plant itself in a new country even 
against unfriendly legislation. It takes not only 
law, but the enforcement of law to keep it out. Tliat 
is the history of this country upon the subject. 

I wish to ask one other question. It being under- 
stood that the Constitution of the United States 
guarantees property in slaves in the Territories, if 
there is any infringement of the right of that prop- 
erty, would not the United States courts, organized 
for the government of the Territory, apply such 



Abraham Lincoln 355 

remedy as might be necessary in that case ? It is a 
maxim held by the courts that there is no wrong 
without its remedy; and the courts have a rem- 
edy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as a 
wrong. 

Again: I will ask you, my friends, if you were 
elected members of the Legislature, what would be 
the first thing you would have to do before entering 
upon your duties ? Swear to support the Constitution 
of the United States. Suppose you believe, as Judge 
Douglas does, that the Constitution of the United 
States guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold 
slaves in that Territory ; that they are his property : 
how can you clear your oaths unless you give him 
such legislation as is necessary to enable him to enjoy 
that property? What do you understand by sup- 
porting the Constitution of a State, or of the United 
States? Is it not to give such constitutional helps 
to the rights established by that Constitution as may 
be practically needed? Can you, if you swear to 
support the Constitution, and believe that the Con- 
stitution establishes a right, clear your oath, without 
giving it support? Do you support the Constitution 
if, knowing or believing there is a right established 
under it which needs specific legislation, you with- 
hold that legislation? Do you not violate and dis- 
regard your oath ? I can conceive of nothing plainer 
in the world. There can be nothing in the words 
"support the Constitution," if you may run counter 
to it by refusing support to any right established 
under the Constitution. And what I say here will 
hold with still more force against the Judge's 



356 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

doctrine of "unfriendly legislation." How could 
you, having sworn to support the Constitution, and 
believing it guaranteed the right to hold slaves in 
the Territories, assist in legislation intended to defeat 
that right ? That would be violating your own view 
of the Constitution. Not only so, but if you were 
to do so, how long would it take the courts to 
hold your votes unconstitutional and void? Not a 
moment. 

Lastly, I would ask: Is not Congress itself under 
obligation to give legislative support to any right 
that is established under the United States Constitu- 
tion? I repeat the question: Is not Congress itself 
bound to give legislative support to any right that 
is established in the United States Constitution ? A 
member of Congress swears to support the Constitu- 
tion of the United States: and if he sees a right 
established by that Constitution which needs specific 
legislative protection, can he clear his oath without 
giving that protection ? Let me ask you why many 
of us who are opposed to slavery upon principle give 
our acquiescence to a Fugitive Slave law? Why do 
we hold ourselves under obligations to pass such a 
law, and abide by it when it is passed ? Because the 
Constitution makes provision that the owners of 
slaves shall have the right to reclaim them. It gives 
the right to reclaim slaves; and that right is, as 
Judge Douglas says, a barren right, unless there is 
legislation that will enforce it. 

The mere declaration, "No person held to service 
or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escap- 
ing into another, shall in consequence of any law or 



Abraham Lincoln 357 

regulation therein be discharged from such service or 
labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party 
to whom such service or labor may be due," is power- 
less without specific legislation to enforce it. Now, 
on what ground would a member of Congress, who is 
opposed to slavery in the abstract, vote for a Fugitive 
law, as I would deem it my duty to do? Because 
there is a constitutional right which needs legislation 
to enforce it. And although it is distasteful to me, 
I have sworn to support the Constitution; and 
having so sworn, I cannot conceive that I do support 
it if I withhold from that right any necessary legisla- 
tion to make it practical. And if that is true in 
regard to a Fugitive Slave law, is the right to have 
fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in the 
Constitution than the right to hold slaves in the 
Territories? For this decision is a just exposition 
of the Constitution, as Judge Douglas thinks. Is 
the one right any better than the other? Is there 
any man who, while a member of Congress, would 
give support to the one any more than the other ? If 
I wished to refuse to give legislative support to slave 
property in the Territories, if a member of Congress, 
I could not do it, holding the view that the Con- 
stitution establishes that right. If I did it at all, it 
would be because I deny that this decision properly 
construes the Constitution. But if I acknowledge, 
with Judge Douglas, that this decision properly con- 
strues the Constitution, I cannot conceive that I 
would be less than a perjured man if I should refuse 
in Congress to give such protection to that property 
as in its nature it needed. 



35^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

At the end of what I have said here I propose to 
give the Judge my fifth interrogatory, which he may 
take and answer at his leisure. My fifth inter- 
rogatory is this: 

If the slaveholding citizens of a United States 
Territory should need and demand Congressional 
legislation for the protection of their slave property 
in such Territory, would you, as a member of Con- 
gress, vote for or against such legislation ? 

Judge Douglas: Will you repeat that? I want 
to answer that question. 

Mr. Lincoln: If the slaveholding citizens of 
a United States Territory should need and de- 
mand Congressional legislation for the protection of 
their slave property in such Territory, would you, 
as a member of Congress, vote for or against such 
legislation ? 

I am aware that in some of the speeches Judge 
Douglas has made, he has spoken as if he did not 
know or think that the Supreme Court had decided 
that a Territorial Legislature cannot exclude slavery. 
Precisely what the Judge would say upon the sub- 
ject — whether he would say definitely that he does 
not understand they have so decided, or whether he 
would say he does understand that the court have so 
decided, — I do not know; but I know that in his 
speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they 
had not decided yet; and in his answer to me at 
Freeport, he spoke of it, so far, again, as I can com- 
prehend it, as a thing that had not yet been decided. 
Now, I hold that if the Judge does entertain that 
view, I think that he is not mistaken in so far as it 



Abraham Lincoln 359 

can be said that the court has not decided anything 
save the mere question of jurisdiction. I know the 
legal arguments that can be made, — that after a 
court has decided that it cannot take jurisdiction in 
a case, it then has decided all that is before it, and 
that is the end of it. A plausible argument can be 
made in favor of that proposition ; but I know that 
Judge Douglas has said in one of his speeches that 
the court went forward, like honest men as they were, 
and decided all the points in the case. If any points 
are really extra- judicially decided, because not ne- 
cessarily before them, then this one as to the power 
of the Territorial Legislature, to exclude slavery 
is one of them, as also the one that the Missouri 
Compromise was null and void. They are both 
extra-judicial, or neither is, according as the court 
held that they had no jurisdiction in the case be- 
tween the parties, because of want of capacity of 
one party to maintain a suit in that court. I want, 
if I have sufficient time, to show that the court 
did pass its opinion; but that is the only thing 
actually done in the case. If they did not decide, 
they showed what they were ready to decide when- 
ever the matter was before them. What is that 
opinion? After having argued that Congress had 
no power to pass a law excluding slavery from a 
United States Territory, they then used language 
to this effect: That inasmuch as Congress itself could 
not exercise such a power, it followed as a matter of 
course that it could not authorize a Territorial 
government to exercise it ; for the Territorial Legis- 
lature can do no more than Congress could do. Thus 



360 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

it expressed its opinion emphatically against the 
power of a Territorial Legislature to exclude slavery, 
leaving us in just as little doubt on that point as 
upon any other point they really decided. 

Now, my fellow-citizens, I will detain 3^ou only a 
little while longer; my time is nearly out. I find a 
report of a speech made by Judge Douglas at Joliet, 
since we last met at Freeport, — published, I believe, 
in the Missouri Republican, — on the 9th of this 
month, in which Judge Douglas says: 

" You know at Ottawa I read this platform, and asked 
him if he concurred in each and all of the principles set 
forth in it. He would not answer these questions. At 
last I said frankly, I wish you to answer them, because 
when I get them up here where the color of your prin- 
ciples are a little darker than in Egypt, I intend to trot 
you down to Jonesboro. The very notice that I was 
going to take him down to Egypt made him tremble in 
his knees so that he had to be carried from the platform. 
He laid up seven days, and in the meantime held a con- 
sultation with his political physicians ; they had Lovejoy 
and Farnsworth and all the leaders of the Abolition 
party, they consulted it all over, and at last Lincoln came 
to the conclusion that he would answer, so he came up to 
Freeport last Friday." 

Now, that statement altogether furnishes a sub- 
ject for philosophical contemplation. I have been 
treating it in that way, and I have really come to the 
conclusion that I can explain it in no other way than 
by believing the Judge is crazy. If he was in his 
right mind I cannot conceive how he would have 
risked disgusting the four or five thousand of his own 



Abraham Lincoln 361 

friends who stood there and knew, as to my having 
been carried from the platform, that there was not a 
word of truth in it. 

Judge Douglas: Did n't they carry you off? 

Mr. Lincoln: There! that question illustrates the 
character of this man Douglas exactly. He smiles 
now, and says, "Didn't they carry you off?" but 
he said then ' ' he had to be carried off ; and he said it 
to convince the country that he had so completely 
broken me down by his speech that I had to be 
carried away. Now he seeks to dodge it, and asks, 
"Didn 't they carry you off?" Yes, they did. But, 
Judge Douglas, why didnt you tell the truth?'' I 
would like to know why you did n't tell the truth 
about it. And then again "He laid up seven days." 
He put this in print for the people of the country to 
read as a serious document. I think if he had been 
in his sober senses he would not have risked that 
barefacedness in the presence of thousands of his 
own friends who knew that I made speeches within 
six of the seven days at Henry, Marshall County, 
Augusta, Hancock County, and Macomb, McDonough 
County, including all the necessary travel to meet 
him again at Freeport at the end of the six days. 
Now I say there is no charitable way to look at that 
statement, except to conclude that he is actually 
crazy. There is another thing in that statement 
that alarmed me very greatly as he states it, that 
he was going to "trot me down to Egypt." Thereby 
he would have you infer that I would not come to 
Egypt unless he forced me — that I could not be got 
here unless he, giant -like, had hauled me down here. 



362 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

That statement he makes, too, in the teeth of the 
knowledge that I had made the stipulation to come 
down here and that he himself had been very reluctant 
to enter into the stipulation. More than all this : Judge 
Douglas, when he made that statement, must have 
been crazy and wholly out of his sober senses, or else 
he would have known that when he got me down 
here, that promise — that windy promise — of his 
powers to annihilate me, would n't amount to any- 
thing. Now, how little do I look like being carried 
away trembling ? Let the Judge go on ; and after he 
is done with his half-hour, I want you all, if I can't 
go home myself, to let me stay and rot here ; and if 
anything happens to the Judge, if I cannot carry 
him to the hotel and put him to bed, let me stay here 
and rot. I say, then, here is something extraordi- 
nary in this statement. I ask you if you know any 
other living man who would make such a statement ? 
I will ask my friend Casey, over there, if he would do 
such a thing ? Would he send that out and have his 
men take it as the truth? Did the Judge talk of 
trotting me down to Egypt to scare me to death? 
Why, I know this people better than he does. I 
was raised just a little east of here. I am a part of 
this people. But the Judge was raised farther north, 
and perhaps he has some horrid idea of what this 
people might be induced to do. But really I have 
talked about this matter perhaps longer than I ought, 
for it is no great thing ; and yet the smallest are often 
the most difficult things to deal with. The Judge has 
set about seriously trying to make the impression 
that when we meet at different places I am literally 



Stephen A. Douglas 363 

in his clutches — that I am a poor, helpless, decrepit 
mouse, and that I can do nothing at all. This is one 
of the ways he has taken to create that impression. 
I don't know any other way to meet it except this. 
I don't want to quarrel with him — to call him a liar; 
but when I come square up to him I don't know 
what else to call him if I must tell the truth out. I 
want to be at peace, and reserve all my fighting 
powers for necessary occasions. My time now is 
very nearly out, and I give up the trifle that is left 
to the Judge, to let him set my knees trembling 
again, if he can. 



MR. DOUGLAS S REPLY. 

My Friends : While I am very grateful to you for 
the enthusiasm which you show for me, I will say in 
all candor that your quietness will be much more 
agreeable than your applause, inasmuch as you 
deprive me of some part of my time whenever you 
cheer. 

I will commence where Mr. Lincoln left off, and 
make a remark upon this serious complaint of his 
about my speech at Joliet. I did say there in a 
playful manner that when I put these questions to 
Mr. Lincoln at Ottawa he failed to answer, and that 
he trembled and had to be carried off the stand 
and required seven days to get up his reply. That 
he did not walk off from that stand he will not 
deny. That when the crowd went away from the 
stand with me, a few persons carried him home on 
their shoulders and laid him down, he will admit. 



3^4 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

I wish to say to you that whenever I degrade my 
friends and myself by allowing them to carry me on 
their backs along through the public streets, when I 
am able to walk, I am willing to be deemed crazy. 
I did not say whether I beat him or he beat me in 
the argument. It is true I put these questions to 
him, and I put them not as mere idle questions, but 
showed that I based them upon the creed of the 
Black Republican party as declared by their con- 
ventions in that portion of the State which he 
depends upon to elect him, and desired to know 
whether he indorsed that creed. He would not 
answer. When I reminded him that I intended 
bringing him into Egypt and renewing my questions 
if he refused to answer, he then consulted and did 
get up his answers one week after, — answers which 
I may refer to in a few minutes and show you how 
equivocal they are. My object was to make him 
avow whether or not he stood by the platform of 
his party; the resolutions I then read and upon 
which I based my questions had been adopted by 
his party in the Galena Congressional District and 
the Chicago and Bloomington Congressional Dis- 
tricts, composing a large majority of the counties 
in this State that give Republican or Abolition ma- 
jorities. Mr. Lincoln cannot and will not deny that 
the doctrines laid down in these resolutions were in 
substance put forth in Lovejoy's resolutions, which 
were voted for by a majority of his party, some of 
them, if not all, receiving the support of every man 
of his party. Hence I laid a fotmdation for my 
questions to him before I asked him whether that 



Stephen A. Douglas 365 

was or was not the platform of his party. He says 
that he answered my questions. One of them was 
whether he would vote to admit any more slave 
States into the Union. The creed of the Republican 
party as set forth in the resolutions of their various 
conventions was that they would under no cir- 
cumstances vote to admit another slave State. It 
was put forth in the Love joy resolutions in the 
Legislature; it was put forth and passed in a 
majority of all the counties of this State which give 
Abolition or Republican majorities, or elect members 
to the Legislature of that school of politics. I had 
a right to know whether he would vote for or against 
the admission of another slave State in the event the 
people wanted it. He first answered that he was not 
pledged on the subject and then said: 

" In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged 
to the admission of any more slave States into the Union, 
I state to you very frankly that I would be exceedingly 
sorry ever to be put in the position of having to pass on 
that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know 
that there would never be another slave State admitted 
into the Union; but I must add that if slavery shall be 
kept out of the Territories during the Territorial existence 
of any one given Territory, and then the people, having 
a fair chance and clean field, when they come to adopt a 
constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as adopt a 
slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence 
of the institution among them, I see no alternative, if we 
own the country, but to admit them into the Union." 

Now analyze that answer. In the first place, he 
says he would be exceedingly sorry to be put in a 



366 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

position where he would have to vote on the ques- 
tion of the admission of a slave State. Why is he a 
candidate for the Senate if he would be sorry to be 
put in that position? I trust the people of Illinois 
will not put him in a position which he would be so 
sorry to occupy. The next position he takes is that 
he would be glad to know that there would never be 
another slave State, yet, in certain contingencies, 
he might have to vote for one. What is that con- 
tingency? If Congress keeps slavery out by law 
while it is a Territory, and then the people should 
have a fair chance and should adopt slavery, unin- 
fluenced by the presence of the institution, he sup- 
posed he would have to admit the State. Suppose 
Congress should not keep slavery out during their 
Territorial existence, then how would he vote when 
the people applied for admission into the Union with 
a slave constitution? That he does not answer; 
and that is the condition of every Territory we have 
now got. Slavery is not kept out of Kansas by Act 
of Congress; and when I put the question to Mr. 
Lincoln, whether he will vote for the admission with 
or without slavery, as her people may desire, he will 
not answer, and you have not an answer from him. 
In Nebraska, slavery is not prohibited by Act of 
Congress, but the people are allowed, under the 
Nebraska Bill, to do as they please on the subject; 
and when I ask him whether he will vote to admit 
Nebraska with a slave constitution if her people 
desire it, he will not answer. So with New Mexico, 
Washington Territory, Arizona, and the four new 
States to be admitted from Texas. You cannot get 



Stephen A. Douglas 367 

an answer from him to these questions. His an- 
swer only appHes to a given case, to a condition, — 
things which he knows do not exist in any one Terri- 
tory in the Union. He tries to give you to under- 
stand that he would allow the people to do as they 
please, and yet he dodges the question as to every 
Territory in the Union. I now ask why cannot Mr. 
Lincoln answer to each of these Territories ? He has 
not done it, and he will not do it. The Abolitionists 
up north understand that this answer is made with a 
view of not committing himself on any one Territory 
now in existence. It is so understood there, and 
you cannot expect an answer from him on a case that 
applies to any one Territory, or applies to the new 
States which by compact we are pledged to admit 
out of Texas, when they have the requisite popula- 
tion and desire admission. I submit to you whether 
he has made a frank answer, so that you can tell 
how he would vote in any one of these cases. "He 
would be sorry to be put in the position." Why 
would he be sorry to be put in this position if his 
duty required him to give the vote ? If the people of 
a Territory ought to be permitted to come into the 
Union as a State, with slavery or without it, as they 
pleased, why not give the vote admitting them 
cheerfully ? If in his opinion they ought not to come 
in with slavery, even if they wanted to, why not say 
that he would cheerfully vote against their admission ? 
His intimation is that conscience would not let him 
vote "No," and he would be sorry to do that which 
his conscience would compel him to do as an honest 
man. 



368 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

In regard to the contract, or bargain, between 
Trumbull, the Abolitionists, and him, which he 
denies, I wish to say that the charge can be proved 
by notorious historical facts. Trumbull, Lovejoy, 
Giddings, Fred Douglass, Hale and Banks were 
travelling the State at that time making speeches on 
the same side and in the same cause with him. He 
contents himself with the simple denial that any such 
thing occurred. Does he deny that he, and Trum- 
bull, and Breese, and Giddings, and Chase, and Fred 
Douglass, and Lovejoy, and all those Abolitionists 
and deserters from the Democratic party did make 
speeches all over this State in the same common 
cause? Does he deny that Jim Matheny was then, 
and is now, his confidential friend, and does he deny 
that Matheny made the charge of the bargain and 
fraud in his own language, as I have read it from 
his printed speech? Matheny spoke of his own 
personal knowledge of that bargain existing between 
Lincoln, Trumbull, and the Abolitionists. He still 
remains Lincoln's confidential friend, and is now a 
candidate for Congress, and is canvassing the Spring- 
field District for Lincoln. I assert that I can prove 
the charge to be true in detail if I can ever get it 
where I can summon and compel the attendance of 
witnesses. I have the statement of another man to 
the same effect as that made by Matheny, which I 
am not permitted to use yet ; but Jim Matheny is a 
good witness on that point, and the history of the 
country is conclusive upon it. That Lincoln up to 
that time had been a Whig, and then undertook 
to Abolitionize the Whigs and bring them into the 



Stephen A. Douglas 369 

Abolition camp, is beyond denial; that Trumbull up 
to that time had been a Democrat, and deserted, 
and undertook to Abolitionize the Democracy, and 
take them into the Abolition camp, is beyond denial ; 
that they are both now active, leading, distinguished 
members of this Abolition Republican party, in full 
communion, is a fact that cannot be questioned or 
denied. 

But Lincoln is not willing to be responsible for the 
creed of his party. He complains because I hold 
him responsible ; and in order to avoid the issue, he 
attempts to show that individuals in the Democratic 
party, many years ago, expressed Abolition senti- 
ments. It is true that Tom Campbell, when a 
candidate for Congress in 1850, published the letter 
which Lincoln read. When I asked Lincoln for the 
date of that letter, he could not give it. The date of 
the letter has been suppressed by other speakers 
who have used it, though I take it for granted that 
Lincoln did not know the date. If he will take the 
trouble to examine, he will find that the letter was 
published only two days before the election, and 
was never seen until after it, except in one county. 
Tom Campbell would have been beat to death by 
the Democratic party if that letter had been made 
public in his district. As to Molony, it is true he 
uttered sentiments of the kind referred to by Mr. 
Lincoln, and the best Democrats would not vote 
for him for that reason. I returned from Washing- 
ton after the passage of the Compromise measures 
m 1850, and when I found Molony running un- 
der Wentworth's tutelage and on his platform, I 



370 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

denounced him, and declared that he was no Demo- 
crat. In my speech at Chicago, just before the 
election that year, I went before the infuriated 
people of that city and vindicated the Compromise 
measures of 1850. Remember the city council had 
passed resolutions nullifying Acts of Congress and 
instructing the police to withhold their assistance 
from the execution of the laws ; and as I was the only 
man in the city of Chicago who was responsible for 
the passage of the Compromise measures, I went 
before the crowd, justified each and every one of 
those measures; and let it be said, to the eternal 
honor of the people of Chicago, that when they were 
convinced by my exposition of those measures that 
they were right, and they had done wrong in opposing 
them, they repealed their nullifying resolutions, and 
declared that they would acquiesce in and support 
the laws of the land. These facts are well known, 
and Mr. Lincoln can only get up individual instances, 
dating back to i849-'5o, which are contradicted by 
the whole tenor of the Democratic creed. 

But Mr. Lincoln does not want to be held re- 
sponsible for the Black Republican doctrine of no 
more slave States. Farnsworth is the candidate 
of his party to-day in the Chicago District, and 
he made a speech in the last Congress in which 
he called upon God to palsy his right arm if he 
ever voted for the admission of another slave State, 
whether the people wanted it or not. Lovejoy is 
making speeches all over the State for Lincoln now, 
and taking ground against any more slave States. 
Washbume, the Black Republican candidate for 



Stephen A. Douglas 371 

Congress in the Galena District, is making speeches 
in favor of this same Abolition platform, declaring 
no more slave States. Why are men running for 
Congress in the northern districts, and taking that 
Abolition platform for their guide, when Mr. Lincoln 
does not want to be held to it down here in Egypt 
and in the centre of the State, and objects to it so as 
to get votes here ? Let me tell Mr. Lincoln that his 
party in the northern part of the State hold to that 
Abolition platform, and that if they do not in the 
south and in the centre, they present the extraordi- 
nary spectacle of a "house divided against itself," 
and hence "cannot stand." I now bring down upon 
him the vengeance of his own Scriptural quotation, 
and give it a more appropriate application than he 
did, when I say to him that his party. Abolition in 
one end of the State, and opposed to it in the other, is 
a house divided against itself, and cannot stand, and 
ought not to stand, for it attempts to cheat the 
American people out of their votes by disguising 
its sentiments. 

Mr. Lincoln attempts to cover up and get over his 
Abolitionism by telling you that he was raised a 
little east of you, beyond the Wabash in Indiana, 
and he thinks that makes a mighty sound and good 
man of him on all these questions. I do not know 
that the place where a man is born or raised has 
much to do with his political principles. The worst 
Abolitionists I have ever known in Illinois have been 
men who have sold their slaves in Alabama and 
Kentucky, and have come here and turned Aboli- 
tionists whilst spending the money got for the 



372 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

negroes they sold ; and I do not know that an Aboli- 
tionist from Indiana or Kentucky ought to have any 
more credit because he was born and raised among 
slaveholders. I do not know that a native of 
Kentucky is more excusable because, raised among 
slaves, his father and mother having owned slaves, 
he comes to Illinois, turns Abolitionist, and slanders 
the graves of his father and mother, and breathes 
curses upon the institutions under which he was 
bom, and his father and mother bred. True, I was 
not born out west here. I was born away down in 
Yankee land, I was born in a valley in Vermont, with 
the high mountains around me. I love the old green 
mountains and valleys of Vermont, where I was bom, 
and where I played in my childhood. I went up to 
visit them some seven or eight years ago, for the 
first time for twenty odd years. When I got there 
they treated me very kindly. They invited me to 
the Commencement of their college, placed me on 
the seats with their distinguished guests, and con- 
ferred upon me the degree of LL.D., in Latin (Doctor 
of Laws), — the same as they did Old Hickory, at 
Cambridge, man}^ years ago; and I give you my 
word and honor I understood just as much of the 
Latin as he did. When they got through conferring 
the honorary degree they called upon me for a 
speech; and I got up, with my heart full and swell- 
ing with gratitude for their kindness, and I said to 
them: "My friends, Vermont is the most glorious 
spot on the face of this globe for a man to be bom in, 
provided he emigrates when he is very young." 
I emigrated when I was very young. I came out 



Stephen A. Douglas 373 

here when I was a boy, and I found my mind Hberal- 
ized, and my opinions enlarged, when I got on these 
broad prairies, with only the heavens to bound my 
vision, instead of having them circumscribed by the 
little narrow ridges that surrounded the valley where 
I was bom. But I discard all flings of the land where 
a man was born ; I wish to be judged by my princi- 
ples, by those great public measures and constitu- 
tional principles upon which the peace, the happiness 
and the perpetuity of this Republic now rest. 

Mr. Lincoln has framed another question, pro- 
pounded it to me, and desired my answer. As I 
have said before, I did not put a question to him 
that I did not first lay a foundation for by showing 
that it was a part of the platform of the party whose 
votes he is now seeking, adopted in a majority of 
the counties where he now hopes to get a majority, 
and supported by the candidates of his party now 
running in those counties. But I will answer his 
question. It is as follows: "If the slaveholding 
citizens of a United States Territory should need and 
demand Congressional legislation for the protection 
of their slave property in such Territory, would you, 
as a member of Congress, vote for or against such 
legislation ? " I answer him that it is a fundamental 
article in the Democratic creed that there should be 
non-interference and non-intervention by Congress 
with slavery in the States or Territories. Mr. Lin- 
coln could have found an answer to his question in 
the Cincinnati platform, if he had desired it. The 
Democratic party have always stood by that great 
principle of non-interference and non-intervention by 



374 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Congress with slavery in the States and Territories 
alike, and I stand on that platform now. 

Now, I desire to call your attention to the fact 
that Lincoln did not define his own position in his 
own question. How does he stand on that question ? 
He put the question to me at Freeport whether or 
not I would vote to admit Kansas into the Union 
before she had 93,420 inhabitants. I answered him 
at once that, it having been decided that Kansas 
had now population enough for a slave State, she 
had population enough for a free State. 

I answered the question unequivocally ; and then 
I asked him whether he would vote for or against the 
admission of Kansas before she had 93,420 inhabit- 
ants and he would not answer me. To-day he has 
called attention to the fact that in his opinion my 
answer on that question w^as not quite plain enough, 
and yet he has not answered it himself. He now 
puts a question in relation to Congressional inter- 
ference in the Territories to me. I answer him 
direct, and yet he has not answered the question 
himself. I ask you whether a man has any right in 
common decency to put questions in these public 
discussions to his opponent which he will not answer 
himself when they are pressed home to him. I 
have asked him three times whether he would vote 
to admit Kansas whenever the people applied with a 
constitution of their own making and their own 
adoption under circumstances that were fair, just, 
and unexceptionable; but I cannot get an answer 
from him. Nor will he answer the question which 
he put to me, and which I have just answered, in 



Stephen A. Douglas 375 

relation to Congressional interference in the Terri- 
tories by making a slave code there. 

It is true that he goes on to answer the question by 
arguing that under the decision of the Supreme 
Court it is the duty of a man to vote for a slave code 
in the Territories. He says that it is his duty, under 
the decision that the court has made; and if he 
believes in that decision he would be a perjured man 
if he did not give the vote. I want to know whether 
he is not bound to a decision which is contrary to his 
opinions just as much as to one in accordance with 
his opinions. If the decision of the Supreme Court, 
the tribunal created by the Constitution to decide 
the question, is final and binding, is he not bound by 
it just as strongly as if he was for it instead of against 
it originally? Is every man in this land allowed to 
resist decisions he does not like, and only support 
those that meet his approval ? What are important 
courts worth, unless their decisions are binding on all 
good citizens ? It is the fundamental principle of the 
judiciary that its decisions are final. It is created for 
that purpose ; so that when you cannot agree among 
yourselves on a disputed point, you appeal to the 
judicial tribunal, which steps in and decides for you; 
and that decision is then binding on every good 
citizen. It is the law of the land just as much with 
Mr. Lincoln against it as for it. And yet he says if 
that decision is binding he is a perjured man if he 
does not vote for a slave code in the different Terri- 
tories of this Union. Well, if you [turning to Mr. 
Lincoln] are not going to resist the decision, if you 
obey it and do not intend to array mob law against 



376 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the constituted authorities, then, according to your 
own statement, you will be a perjured man if you do 
not vote to establish slavery in these Territories. 
My doctrine is that, even taking Mr. Lincoln's view, 
that the decision recognizes the right of a man to 
carry . his slaves into the Territories of the United 
States if he pleases, yet after he gets there he needs 
affirmative law to make that right of any value. 
The same doctrine not onl}'^ applies to slave property, 
but all other kinds of propert}?". Chief Justice Taney 
places it upon the ground that slave property is on 
an equal footing with other property. Suppose one 
of your merchants should move to Kansas and open 
a liquor store: he has a right to take groceries and 
liquors there; but the mode of selling them, and the 
circumstances under which they shall be sold, and 
all the remedies, must be prescribed by local legisla- 
tion; and if that is unfriendly, it will drive him out 
just as effectually as if there was a constitutional 
provision against the sale of liquor. So the absence 
of local legislation to encourage and support slave 
property in a Territory excludes it practically just 
as effectually as if there was a positive constitutional 
provision against it. Hence I assert that under the 
Dred Scott decision you cannot maintain slavery a 
day in a Territory where there is an vmwilling peo- 
ple and unfriendly legislation. If the people are 
opposed to it, our right is a barren, w^orthless, use- 
less right; and if they are for it, they will support 
and encourage it. We come right back, therefore, 
to the practical question,— if the people of a Terri- 
tory want slavery, they will have it; and if they do 



Stephen A. Douglas 377 

not want it, you cannot force it on them. And this 
is the practical question, the great principle, upon 
^vhich our institutions rest. I am willing to take 
the decision of the Supreme Court as it was pro- 
nounced by that august tribunal, without stopping 
to inquire whether I would have decided that way or 
not. I have had many a decision made against me 
on questions of law which I did not like, but I was 
bound by them just as much as if I had had a hand 
in making them and approved them. Did you ever 
see a lawyer or a client lose his case that he approved 
the decision of the court? They always think the 
decision unjust when it is given against them. In 
a government of laws, like ours, we must sustain the 
Constitution as our fathers made it, and maintain 
the rights of the States as they are guaranteed under 
the Constitution; and then we will have peace and 
harmony between the different States and sections 
of this glorious Union. 



Political Debates 

between 

Abraham Lincoln 

and 

Stephen A. Douglas 

In the Senatorial Campaign of 1858 in Illinois; 

including the preceding speeches of each 

at Chicago, Springfield, etc. 



Part II 



POLITICAL DEBATES 

BETWEEN 

LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS 



FOURTH JOINT DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON, 

September i8, 1858. 

MR. Lincoln's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : It will be very difficult 
for an audience so large as this to hear distinctly 
what a speaker says, and consequently it is im- 
portant that as profound silence be preserved as 
possible. 

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentle- 
man called upon me to know whether I was really in 
favor of producing a perfect equality between the 
negroes and white people. While I had not pro- 
posed to myself on this occasion to say much on that 
subject, yet as the question was asked me I thought 
I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying some- 
thing in regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, 
nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any 
way the social and political equality of the white 
and black races ; that I am not, nor ever have been, 
in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor 



2 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry 
with white people ; and I will say, in addition to this, 
that there is a physical difference between the white 
and black races which I believe will forever forbid 
the two races living together on terms of social and 
political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot 
so live, while they do remain together there must 
be the position of superior and inferior, and I as 
much as any other man am in favor of having the 
superior position assigned to the white race. I say 
upon this occasion I do not perceive that because 
the white man is to have the superior position the 
negro should be denied everything. I do not under- 
stand that because I do not want a negro woman for 
a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My 
understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am 
now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have 
had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So 
it seems to me quite possible for us to get along 
without making either slaves or wives of negroes. 
I will add to this that I have never seen, to my 
knowledge, a man, woman, or child who was in 
favor of producing a perfect equality, social and 
political, between negroes and white men. I 
recollect of but one distinguished instance that I 
ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied 
of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge 
Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. 
I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am 
not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I 
have never had the least apprehension that I or my 
friends would marry negroes if there was no law 



Abraham Lincoln 3 

to keep them from it ; but as Judge Douglas and his 
friends seem to be in great apprehension that they 
might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I 
give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the 
very last stand by the law of this State which forbids 
the marrying of white people with negroes. I will 
add one further word, which is this: that I do not 
understand that there is any place where an altera- 
tion of the social and political relations of the negro 
and the white man can be made, except in the State 
Legislature, — not in the Congress of the United 
States; and as I do not really apprehend the ap- 
proach of any such thing myself, and as Judge 
Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some 
such danger is rapidly approaching, I propose as the 
best means to prevent it that the Judge be kept at 
home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight 
the measure. I do not propose dwelling longer at 
this time on this subject. 

When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Con- 
gress, returned to Illinois in the month of August, 
he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made what 
may be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which 
I understand proved to be very offensive to him. 
The Judge was at that time out upon one of his 
speaking tours through the country, and when the 
news of it reached him, as I am informed, he de- 
nounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms for 
having said what he did in regard to that matter. 
I was travelling at that time, and speaking at the 
same places with Judge Douglas on subsequent days, 
and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said 



4 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

of Douglas, and what Douglas had said back again, 
I felt that I was in a position where I could not re- 
main entirely silent in regard to the matter. Con- 
sequently, upon two or three occasions I alluded to 
it, and alluded to it in no other wise than to say that 
in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull against 
Douglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to 
say nothing about it; that I did personally know 
Judge Trumbull ; that I believed him to be a man 
of veracity; that I believed him to be a man of 
capacity sufficient to know very well whether an 
assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawn 
from a set of facts, was true or false ; and as a con- 
clusion of my own from that, I stated it as my belief 
if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would 
prove everything he had said. I said this upon two 
or three occasions. Upon a subsequent occasion, 
Judge Trumbull spoke again before an audience at 
Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his 
charge against Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he 
relied upon to substantiate it. This speech was 
published at length; and subsequently at Jackson- 
ville Judge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the 
course of his speech, and near the close of it, he 
stated in regard to myself what I will now read: 
"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should 
not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such 
charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln having 
indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, 
he should hold him (Lincoln) responsible for the 
slanders." I have done simply what I have told 
you, to subject me to this invitation to notice the 



Abraham Lincoln 5 

charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally 
been my purpose to discuss that matter at all. But 
inasmuch as it seems to be the wish of Judge Douglas 
to hold me responsible for it, then for once in my life 
I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent 
I take the responsibility. 

I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand 
to the reporters that portion of Judge Trumbull's 
Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, 
and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made 
at Jacksonville in answer to it. I shall thereby 
furnish the readers of this debate with the complete 
discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I can- 
not now read them, for the reason that it would take 
half of my first hour to do so. I can only make some 
comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the 
following words: "Now, the charge is, that there 
was a plot entered into to have a constitution 
formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving 
the people an opportunity to vote upon it, and that 
Mr. Douglas was in the plot." I will state, without 
quoting further, for all will have an opportunity of 
reading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings 
forward what he regards as sufficient evidence to 
substantiate this charge.^ 

It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that 
Senator Bigler, upon the floor of the Senate, had 
declared there had been a conference among the 
senators, in which conference it was determined 
to have an enabling act passed for the people of 
Kansas to form a constitution under, and in this 

• See Tnimbtill's speech at the close of this debate. 



6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

conference it was agreed among them that it was 
best not to have a provision for submitting the con- 
stitution to a vote of the people after it should be 
formed. He then brings forward to show, and 
showing, as he deemed, that Judge Douglas reported 
the bill back to the Senate with that clause stricken 
out. He then shows that there was a new clause 
inserted into the bill, which would in its nature 
prevent a reference of the constitution back for a 
vote of the people, — if, indeed, upon a mere silence 
in the law, it could be assumed that they had the 
right to vote upon it. These are the general state- 
ments that he has made. 

I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's 
speech in which he attempts to answer that speech 
of Judge Trumbull's. When you come to examine 
Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first 
point he makes is : " Suppose it were true that there 
was such a change in the bill, and that I struck it 
out, — is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution 
upon them against their will?" His striking out 
such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, 
he argues, does not establish the proof that it was 
stricken out for the purpose of robbing the people of 
that right. I would say, in the first place, that that 
would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, as 
Judge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills 
have passed without having such a provision in 
them. I believe it is true, though I am not certain, 
that in some instances constitutions framed under 
such bills have been submitted to a vote of the people 
with the law silent upon the subject; but it does 



Abraham Lincoln 7 

not appear that they once had their enabling acts 
framed with an express provision for submitting the 
constitution to be framed to a vote of the people, 
and then that they were stricken out when Congress 
did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That 
there have been bills which never had the provision 
in, I do not question; but when was that provision 
taken out of one that it was in? More especially 
does this evidence tend to prove the proposition that 
Trumbull advanced, when we remember that the 
provision was stricken out of the bill almost simul- 
taneously with the time that Bigler says there was 
a conference among certain senators, and in which it 
was agreed that a bill should be passed leaving that 
out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits 
to attend to the testimony of Bigler, that there was 
a meeting in which it was agreed they should so frame 
the bill that there should be no submission of the 
constitution to a vote of the people. The Judge 
does not notice this part of it. If you take this 
as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain that 
simultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provi- 
sion that did require it to be submitted, and put the 
two together, I think it will make a pretty fair show 
of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, 
enter into a plot to put in force a constitution for 
Kansas, without giving the people any opportunity 
of voting upon it. 

But I must hurry on. The next proposition that 
Judge Douglas puts is this : "But upon examination 
it turns out that the Toombs bill never did contain 
a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted . ' ' 



8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

This is a mere question of fact, and can be deter- 
mined by evidence. I only want to ask this ques- 
tion: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these 
words were not stricken out of the Toombs bill, or 
this bill from which it is alleged the provision was 
stricken out, — a bill which goes by the name of 
Toombs, because he originally brought it forward ? I 
ask why, if the Judge wanted to make a direct issue 
with Trumbull, did he not take the exact proposition 
Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not 
stricken out? Trumbull has given the exact words 
that he says were in the Toombs bill, and he alleges 
that when the bill came back, they were stricken 
out. Judge Douglas does not say that the words 
which Trumbull says were stricken out were not so 
stricken out, but he says there was no provision in 
the Toombs bill to submit the constitution to a vote 
of the people. We see at once that he is merely 
making an issue upon the meaning of the words. 
He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells 
a lie about these words being stricken out, but he 
is really, when pushed up to it, only taking an issue 
upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there 
be any issue upon the meaning of the words, or if 
there be upon the question of fact as to whether these 
words were stricken out, I have before me what I 
suppose to be a genuine copy of the Toombs bill, in 
which it can be shown that the words Trumbull says 
were in it were, in fact, originally there. If there be 
any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents 
here to show they were there. If there be any con- 
troversy upon the sense of the words, — whether 



Abraham Lincoln 9 

these words which were stricken out really con- 
stituted a provision for submitting the matter to a 
vote of the people, — as that is a matter of argument, 
I think I may as well use Trumbull's own argument. 
He says that the proposition is in these words: 

" That the following propositions be and the same are 
hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of 
Kansas when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- 
tion; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified 
by the people at the election for the adoption of the constitu- 
tion, shall be obligatory upon the United States and the 
said State of Kansas." 

Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were 
stricken out of the bill when it came back, and he 
says this was a provision for submitting the constitu- 
tion to a vote of the people; and his argument is 
this: "Would it have been possible to ratify the 
land propositions at the election for the adoption of 
the constitution, unless such an election was to be 
held?" This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge 
Douglas does not meet the charge at all, but he 
stands up and says there was no such proposition 
in that bill for submitting the constitution to be 
framed to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits 
that the language is not a direct provision for sub- 
mitting it, but it is a provision necessarily implied 
from another provision. He asks you how it is pos- 
sible to ratify the land proposition at the election for 
the adoption of the constitution, if there was no 
election to be held for the adoption of the constitu- 
tion. And he goes on to show that it is not any less 
a law because the provision is put in that indirect 



lo Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

shape than it would be if it were put directly. But 
I presume I have said enough to draw attention to 
this point, and I pass it by also. 

Another one of the points that Judge Douglas 
makes upon Trumbull, and at very great length, is, 
that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said in a 
speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitu- 
tion to be made would have to be submitted to the 
people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, what 
ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now ? 
Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply: 
That bill had been in the hands of a party to which 
Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands 
of the committee at the head of which Judge 
Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had a printed 
copy of the original Toombs bill. I have not the 
evidence on that point except a sort of inference I 
draw from the general course of business there. 
What alterations, or what provisions in the way of 
altering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had 
no means of knowing, until the altered bill was 
reported back. vSoon afterwards, when it was re- 
ported back, there was a discussion over it, and per- 
haps Trumbull in reading it hastih^ in the altered 
form did not perceive all the bearings of the altera- 
tions. He was hastily borne into the debate, and 
it does not follow that because there was something 
in it Trumbull did not perceive, that something did 
not exist. More than this, is it true that what 
Trumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas 
did? Suppose Trumbull had been in the plot with 
these other men, would that let Douglas out of it? 



Abraham Lincoln n 

Would it exonerate Douglas that Tiurabull didn't 
then perceive he was in the ])lot? He also asks the 
question: Why did n't Trumbull propose to amend 
the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? 
W^hy, I believe that everything Judge Trumbull had 
proposed, particularly in connection with this ques- 
tion of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on 
the floor of the Senate, had been promptly voted 
down by Judge Douglas and his friends. He had no 
promise that an amendment offered by him to any- 
thing on this subject would receive the slightest 
consideration. Judge Trumbull did bring to the 
notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there 
was no provision for submitting the constitution 
about to be made for the people of Kansas to a vote 
of the people. I beheve I may venture to say that 
Judge Douglas made some reply to this speech of 
Judge Trumbull's, but he never noticed that part of it 
at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, 
the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment 
does not throw much blame upon him ; and if it did, 
it does not reach the question of fact as to what Judge 
Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had 
himself been in the plot, it would not at all relieve 
the others who were in it from blame. If I should 
be indicted for murder, and upon the trial it should 
be discovered that I had been implicated in that 
murder, but that the prosecuting witness was guilty 
too, that would not at all touch the question of my 
crime. It would be no relief to my neck that they 
discovered this other man who charged the crime 
upon me to be guilty too. 



12 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes 
upon Judge Trumbull is, that when he spoke in 
Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that 
the bill had the provision in it for submitting the 
constitution to a vote of the people when it went 
into his (Judge Douglas's) hands, that it was missing 
when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a 
public speech he had subsequently said the altera- 
tions in the bill were made while it was in com- 
mittee, and that they were made in consultation 
between him (Judge Douglas) and Toombs. And 
Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the fact of 
Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the pro- 
position that the bill not only came back with that 
proposition stricken out, but with another clause 
and another provision in it, saying that "until the 
complete execution of this Act there shall be no elec- 
tion in said Territory," — which, Trumbull argued, 
was not only taking the provision for submitting to a 
vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding an 
affirmative one, in that it prevented the people from 
exercising the right under a bill that was merely 
silent on the question. Now, in regard to what he 
says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts 
his ground, — and I believe he uses the term that, 
"it being proven false, he has changed ground," — - 
I call upon all of you, when you come to examine 
that portion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a 
part of mine), to examine whether Trumbull has 
shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift his 
ground, but that he brought forward his original 
charge and the evidence to sustain it yet more fully, 



\ 



Abraham Lincoln 13 

but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in 
addition thereto, he brought in a new piece of evi- 
dence. He shifted no ground. He brought no new 
piece of evidence inconsistent with his former 
testimony ; but he brought a new piece, tending, as 
he thought, and as I think, to prove his proposition. 
To illustrate: A man brings an accusation against 
another, and on trial the man making the charge 
introduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a 
second trial he introduces the same witnesses, who 
tell the same story as before, and a third witness, 
who tells the same thing, and in addition gives 
further testimony corroborative of the charge. So 
with Trumbull. There was no shifting of ground, 
nor inconsistency of testimony between the new 
piece of evidence and what he originally introduced. 
But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to 
strike out that last provision of the bill, and that 
on his motion it was stricken out and a substitute 
inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume 
it is true that that last proposition was stricken out 
by Judge Douglas. Trumbull has not said it was not ; 
Trumbull has himself said that it was so stricken 
out. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as 
Judge Douglas reported it back. It was amended 
somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I am 
speaking of it as he brought it back." Now, when 
Judge Douglas parades the fact that the provision 
was stricken out of the bill when it came back, he 
asserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. 
Trumbull has only said that he originally put it in, — 
not that he did not strike it out. Trumbull says it 



14 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

was not in the bill when it went to the committee. 
When it came back it was in, and Judge Douglas 
said the alterations were made by him in consulta- 
tion with Toombs. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as 
his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, 
if Douglas wants to contradict Trumbull and call him 
a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and not that 
he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear 
is sometimes hard enough pushed to drop a cub; 
and so I presume it was in this case, I presume the 
truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took 
it out. That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge 
Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing, 
and the two don't contradict one another at all. 
The question is. What did he put it in for? In the 
first place, what did he take the other provision 
out of the bill for, — the provision which Trumbull 
argued was necessary for submitting the constitution 
to a vote of the people ? What did he take that out 
for; and, having taken it out, what did he put this 
in for? I say that in the run of things it is not 
unlikely forces conspire to render it vastly expedient 
for Judge Douglas to take that latter clause out again. 
The question that Trumbull has made is that Judge 
Douglas put it in; and he don't meet Trumbull at 
all unless he denies that. 

In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this 
subject he uses this language toward Judge Trum- 
bull. He says: "He forges his evidence from 
beginning to end; and by falsifying the record, he 
endeavors to bolster up his false charge." Well, 
that is a pretty serious statement — Trumbull 



Abraham Lincoln 15 

forges his evidence from beginning to end. Now, 
upon my own authority I say that it is not true. 
What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that 
Trumbull has brought forward. When you come 
to read the speech, as you will be able to, examine 
whether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to 
end. He had the bill or document in his hand like 
that [holding up a paper]. He says that is a copy 
of the Toombs bill, — the amendment offered by 
Toombs. He says that is a copy of the bill as it was 
introduced and went into Judge Douglas's hands. 
Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? 
That is one thing Trumbull brought forward. 
Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginning to 
end! That is the "beginning," we will say. Does 
Douglas say that is a forgery ? Let him say it to-day, 
and we will have a subsequent examination upon 
this subject. Trumbull then holds up another docu- 
ment like this, and says that is an exact copy of the 
bill as it came back in the amended form out of 
Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say 
that is a forgery? Does he say it in his general 
sweeping charge ? Does he say so now ? If he does 
not, then take this Toombs bill and the bill in the 
amended form, and it only needs to compare them 
to see that the provision is in the one and not in the 
other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was 
taken out. 

But, while I am dealing with this question, let us 
see what Trumbull's other evidence is. One other 
piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull says there 
are in this original Toombs bill these words : 



i6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

' ' That the following propositions be and the same are 
hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of 
Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or rejec- 
tion ; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratified 
by the people at the election for the adoption of the con- 
stitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States and 
the said State of Kansas." 

Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open 
the paper here and see whether it is or not. Again, 
Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler 
made the following statement in his place in the 
Senate, December 9, 1857: 

" I was present when that subject was discussed by 
senators before the bill was introduced, and the question 
was raised and discussed, whether the constitution, when 
formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. 
It was held by those most intelligent on the subject that, 
in view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, 
the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular 
vote, it would be better there should be no such pro- 
vision in the Toombs bill ; and it was my understanding, 
in all the intercourse I had, that the Convention would 
make a constitution, and send it here, without submitting 
it to the popular vote." 

Then Trumbull follows on: 

" In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st Decem- 
ber, 1857 [Congressional Globe, same vol., ^ ^ge 113], 
Senator Bigler said : 

" 'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude 
to any social or confidential interview. The meeting 
was not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, 



Abraham Lincoln 17 

and called to promote the public good. My recollection 
was clear that I left the conference under the impression 
that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit 
Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular 
election, and that for delegates to this Convention. This 
impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of 
the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, 
to which I had great aversion; but with the hope of ac- 
complishing a great good, and as no movement had been 
made in that direction in the Territory, I waived this 
objection, and concluded to support the measure. I 
have a few items of testimony as to the correctness of 
these impressions, and with their submission I shall be 
content. I have before me the bill reported by the 
senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing 
for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third section 
of which reads as follows : 

" ' "That the following propositions be, and the same 
are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of 
Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or re- 
jection ; which, if accepted by the Convention and rati- 
fied by the people at the election for the adoption of the 
constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United States 
and the said State of Kansas." 

' ' ' The bill read in his place by the senator from 
Georgia on the 25th of June, and referred to the Com- 
mittee on Territories, contained the same section word 
for word. Both these bills were under consideration at 
the conference referred to; but, sir, when the senator 
from Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate with 
amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that 
portion of the third section which indicated to the Con- 
vention that the constitution should be approved by the 
people. The words ''and ratified by the people at the 



i8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

election for the adoption of the constitution " had been 
stricken out.' " 

Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by 
Bigler upon the floor of the Senate on certain days, 
and that they are recorded in the Congressional Globe 
on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is a 
forgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the 
Congressional Globe f What does he mean when he 
says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence from begin- 
ning to end ? So again he says in another place that 
Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 
{Congressional Globe, part I., page 15), stated: 

"That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. 
Douglas] reported a bill from the Committee on Terri- 
tories, to authorize the people of Kansas to assemble 
and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently 
the senator from Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward 
a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified 
by him and myself in consultation, was passed by the 
Senate." 

Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a 
speech of Douglas, and is recorded in the Congres- 
sional Globe. Is it a forgery ? Is it there or not ? It 
may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these 
pieces of evidence, and distinctly say they are 
forgeries if he dare do it. 

A voice: He will. 

Mr. Lincoln : Well, sir, you had better not commit 
him. He gives other quotations, — another from 
Judge Douglas. He says: 

" I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from 



Abraham Lincoln 19 

any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on 
the Toombs bill, and in the Union, from any quarter, that 
the constitution was not to be submitted to the people. 
I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it 
was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the 
bill had understood it was not, they would have made the 
point on it ; and if they had made it, we should certainly 
have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is a dis- 
covery made since the President found out that it was not 
safe to take it for granted that that would be done, which 
ought in fairness to have been done." 

Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, 
and it is recorded. Does Judge Douglas say it is a 
forgery, and was not true? Trumbull says some- 
where, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found 
by any one who will read this debate, that he did 
distinctly bring it to the notice of those who were 
engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision; 
and then he goes on to give another quotation from 
Judge Douglas, where Judge Trumbull uses this 
language : 

" Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the 
same debate, probably recollecting or being reminded of 
the fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when 
pending that it did not provide for a submission of the 
constitution to the people, made another statement, 
which is to be found in the same volume of the Globe, 
page 22, in which he says: 

" 'That the bill was silent on this subject was true, 
and my attention was called to that about the time it 
was passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that 
powers not delegated were reserved, and that of course 
the constitution would be submitted to the people.' 



20 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

"Whether this statement is consistent with the state- 
ment just before made, that had the point been made it 
would have been yielded to, or that it was a new dis- 
covery, you will determine." 

So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas 
will dispute this, and yet maintain his position that 
Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginning to 
end." I will remark that I have not got these Con- 
gressional Globes with me. They are large books, 
and difficult to carry about, and if Judge Douglas 
shall say that on these .points where Trumbull has 
quoted from them there are no such passages there, 
I shall not be able to prove they are there upon this 
occasion, but I will have another chance. When- 
ever he points out the forgery and says, "I declare 
that this particular thing which Trumbull has 
uttered is not to be found where he says it is," then 
my attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm 
myself for the contest, — stating now that I have not 
the slightest doubt on earth that I will find every 
quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then 
the question is, How can Douglas call that a forgery? 
How can he make out that it is a forgery ? What is 
a forgery? It is the bringing forward something in 
writing or in print purporting to be of certain effect 
when it is altogether untrue. If you come forward 
with my note for one hundred dollars when I have 
never given such a note, there is a forgery. If you 
come forward with a letter purporting to be written 
by me which I never wrote, there is another forgery. 
If you produce anything in writing or in print saying 
it is so and so, the document not being genuine, a 



Abraham Lincoln 21 

forgery has been committed. How do you make this 
a forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine ? 
If Judge Douglas does say these documents and 
quotations are false and forged, he has a full right 
to do so; but until he does it specifically, we don't 
know how to get at him. If he does say they are 
false and forged, I will then look further into it, and 
I presume I can procure the certificates of the proper 
officers that they are genuine copies. I have no 
doubt each of these extracts will be found exacth" 
where Trumbull says it is. Then I leave it to 3^ou if 
Judge Douglas, in making his sweeping charge that 
Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning 
to end, at all meets the case, — if that is the way to 
get at the facts. I repeat again, if he will point out 
which one is a forgery, I will carefully examine it, 
and if it proves that any one of them is really a 
forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any 
longer. I have always wanted to deal with everyone 
I meet candidly and honestly. If I have made any 
assertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed 
out to me, I will withdraw it cheerfully. But I do 
not choose to see Judge Trumbull calumniated, and 
the evidence he has brought forward branded in 
general terms "a forgery from beginning to end." 
This is not the legal way of meeting a charge, and I 
submit to all intelligent persons, both friends of 
Judge Douglas and of m3^self, whether it is. 

The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill 
that went into his hands had the provision in it for a 
submission of the constitution to the people; and I 
say its language amounts to an express provision for 



22 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

a submission, and that he took the provision out. 
He says it was known that the bill was silent in this 
particular ; but I say, Judge Douglas, it was not silent 
when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, 
when you got it, for a submission of the constitution 
to the people. And now, my direct question to 
Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the 
bill silent on this point, he found it necessary to 
strike out those particular harmless words. If he 
had found the bill silent and without this provision, 
he might say what he does now. If he supposes it 
was implied that the constitution would be sub- 
mitted to a vote of the people, how could these two 
lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary 
to strike them out? How could he infer that a 
submission was still implied, after its express pro- 
vision had been stricken from the bill? I find the 
bill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. 
He took it out, and although he took out the other 
provision preventing a submission to a vote of the 
people, I ask. Why did you first put it in f I ask him 
whether he took the original provision out, which 
Trumbull alleges was in the bill. If he admits that he 
did take it, / ask him what he did it for. It looks to us 
as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to 
him, — if he has a different reason for his action from 
the one we assign him — ^he can tell it. I insist upon 
knowing why he made the bill silent upon that point 
when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. 

I was told, before my last paragraph, that my 
time was within three minutes of being out. I pre- 
sume it is expired now; I therefore close. 



Stephen A. Douglas 23 

SENATOR Douglas's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : I had supposed that we 
assembled here to-da}^ for the purpose of a joint dis- 
cussion between Mr. Lincoln and myself upon the 
political questions that now agitate the whole coun- 
try. The rule of such discussions is, that the open- 
ing speaker shall touch upon all the points he 
intends to discuss, in order that his opponent, in 
reply, shall have the opportunity of answering them_. 
Let me ask you what questions of public policy, 
relating to the welfare of this State or the Union, 
has Mr. Lincoln discussed before you? Mr. Lincoln 
simply contented himself at the outset by saying that 
he was not in favor of social and political equality 
between the white man and the negro, and did not 
desire the law so changed as to make the latter 
voters or eligible to office. I am glad that I have 
at last succeeded in getting an answer out of him 
upon this question of negro citizenship and eligi- 
bility to office, for I have been trying to bring 
him to the point on it ever since this canvass 
commenced. 

I will now call your attention to the question 
which Mr. Lincoln has occupied his entire time in 
discussing. He spent his whole hour in retailing 
a charge made by Senator Trumbull against me. 
The circumstances out of which that charge was 
manufactured occurred prior to the last Presidential 
election, over two years ago. If the charge was true, 
why did not Tnmibull make it in 1856, when I was 
discussing the questions of that day all over this 



24 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

State with Lincoln and him, and when it was perti- 
nent to the then issue ? He was then as silent as the 
grave on the subject. If that charge was true, the 
time to have brought it forward was the canvass 
of 1856, the year when the Toombs bill passed the 
Senate. When the facts were fresh in the public 
mind, when the Kansas question was the paramount 
question of the day, and when such a charge would 
have had a material bearing on the election, why 
did he and Lincoln remain silent then, knowing that 
such a charge could be made and proven if true? 
Were they not false to you and false to the country in 
going through that entire campaign concealing their 
knowledge of this enormous conspiracy which, Mr. 
Trumbull says, he then knew and would not tell? 
Mr. Lincoln intimates, in his speech, a good reason 
why Mr. Trumbull would not tell, for he says that it 
might be true, as I proved that it was at Jacksonville, 
that Trumbull was also in the plot, yet that the fact 
of Trumbull's being in the plot would not in any way 
relieve me. He illustrates this argument by sup- 
posing himself on trial for murder, and says that it 
would be no extenuating circumstance if, on his trial 
another man was found to be a party to his crime. 
Well, if Trumbull was in the plot, and concealed 
it in order to escape the odium which would have 
fallen upon himself, I ask you whether you can 
believe him now when he turns State's evidence, and 
avows his own infamy in order to implicate me. I 
am amazed that Mr. Lincoln should now come for- 
ward and indorse that charge, occupying his whole 
hour in reading Mr. Trumbull's speech in support of 



Stephen A. Douglas 25 

it. Why, I ask, does not Mr. Lincoln make a speech 
of his own instead of taking up his time reading 
Trumbull's speech at Alton? I supposed that Mr. 
Lincoln was capable of making a public speech on his 
own account, or I should not have accepted the 
banter from him for a joint discussion. ["How 
about the charges?"] Do not trouble yourselves. 
I am going to make my speech in my own way, and 
I trust, as the Democrats listened patiently and 
respectfully to Mr. Lincoln, that his friends will not 
interrupt me when I am answering him. When Mr. 
Trumbull returned from the East, the first thing he 
did when he landed in Chicago was to make a speech 
wholly devoted to assaults upon my public character 
and public action. Up to that time I had never 
alluded to his course in Congress, or to him directly 
or indirectly, and hence his assaults upon me were 
entirely without provocation and without excuse. 
Since then he has been travelling from one end of 
the State to the other, repeating his vile charge. I 
propose now to read it in his own language : 

" Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that 
there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered 
into by the very men who now claim credit for opposing 
a constitution formed and put in force without giving 
the people any opportunity to pass upon it. This, my 
friends, is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night that 
the very men who traverse the country under banners 
proclaiming popular sovereignty, by design concocted 
a bill on purpose to force a constitution upon that 
people." 



26 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

In answer to some one in the crowd who asked 
him a question, Trumbull said: 

" And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the 
plot to force a constitution upon that people? I will 
satisfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest 
man's throat until he cannot deny it. And to the man 
who does deny it, I will cram the lie down his throat till 
he shall cry ' Enough ! ' 

" It is preposterous ; it is the most damnable effrontery 
that man ever put on, to conceal a scheme to defraud and 
cheat the people out of their rights, and then claim credit 
for it." 

That is the polite language Senator Trumbull 
applied to me, his colleague, when I was two hundred 
miles off. Why did he not speak out as boldly in 
the Senate of the United States, and cram the lie 
down my throat when I denied the charge, first made 
by Bigler, and made him take it back? You all 
recollect how Bigler assaulted me when I was en- 
gaged in a hand-to-hand fight, resisting a scheme to 
force a constitution on the people of Kansas against 
their will. He then attacked me with this charge; 
but I proved its utter falsity, nailed the slander to 
the counter, and made him take the back track. 
There is not an honest man in America who read that 
debate who will pretend that the charge is true. 
Trumbull was then present in the Senate, face to face 
with me; and why did he not then rise and repeat 
the charge, and say he would cram the lie down my 
throat ? I tell you that Trumbull then knew it was a 
lie. He knew that Toombs denied that there ever 



Stephen A. Douglas 27 

was a clause in the bill he brought forward calling 
for and requiring a submission of the Kansas Con- 
stitution to the people. I will tell you what the 
facts of the case were : I introduced a bill to author- 
ize the people of Kansas to form a constitution, and 
come into the Union as a State whenever they should 
have the requisite population for a member of Con- 
gress, and Mr. Toombs proposed a substitute, author- 
izing the people of Kansas, with their then population 
of only 25,000, to form a constitution, and come in at 
once. The question at issue was, whether we would 
admit Kansas with a population of 25,000 or make 
her wait until she had the ratio entitling her to a 
representative in Congress, which was 93,420. That 
was the point of dispute in the Committee on Terri- 
tories, to which both my bill and Mr. Toombs's sub- 
stitute had been referred. I was overruled by a 
majority of the committee, my proposition rejected, 
and Mr. Toombs's proposition to admit Kansas then, 
with her population of 25,000, adopted. Accordingly 
a bill to carry out his idea of immediate admission 
was reported as a substitute for mine ; the only points 
at issue being, as I have already said, the question of 
population, and the adoption of safeguards against 
frauds at the election. Trumbull knew this, — the 
whole Senate knew it, — and hence he was silent at 
that time. He waited until I became engaged in this 
canvass, and finding that I was showing up Lincoln's 
Abolitionism and negro equality doctrines, that I 
was driving Lincoln to the wall, and white men would 
not support his rank Abolitionism, he came back 
from the East and trumped up a system of charges 



28 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

against me, hoping that I would be compelled to 
occupy my entire time in defending myself, so that 
I would not be able to show up the enormity of 
the principles of the Abolitionists. Now, the only 
reason, and the true reason, why Mr, Lincoln has 
occupied the whole of his first hour in this issue be- 
tween Trumbull and myself, is, to conceal from this 
vast audience the real questions which divide the two 
great parties. 

I am not going to allow them to waste much of my 
time with these personal matters. I have lived in 
this State twenty-five years, most of that time have 
been in public life, and my record is open to you all. 
If that record is not enough to vindicate me from 
these petty, malicious assaults, I despise ever to be 
elected to office by slandering my opponents and 
traducing other men. Mr. Lincoln asks you to elect 
him to the United States Senate to-day solely because 
he and Trumbull can slander me. Has he given any 
other reason ? Has he avowed what he was desirous 
to do in Congress on any one question ? He desires 
to ride into office not upon his own merits, not upon 
the merits and soundness of his principles, but upon 
his success in fastening a stale old slander upon me. 

I wish you to bear in mind that up to the time of 
the introduction of the Toombs bill, and after its 
introduction, there had never been an Act of Con- 
gress for the admission of a new State which 
contained a clause requiring its constitution to be 
submitted to the people. The general rule made the 
law silent on the subject, taking it for granted that 
the people would demand and compel a popular 



Stephen A. Douglas 29 

vote on the ratification of their constitution. Such 
was the general rule under Washington, Jefferson, 
Madison, Jackson, and Polk, under the Whig Presi- 
dents and the Democratic Presidents, from the 
beginning of the government down, and nobody 
dreamed that an effort would ever be made to abuse 
the power thus confided to the people of a Territory. 
For this reason our attention was not called to the 
fact of whether there was or was not a clause in the 
Toombs bill compelling submission, but it was taken 
for granted that the constitution would be submitted 
to the people whether the law compelled it or not. 

Now, I will read from the report by me as chair- 
man of the Committee on Territories at the time I 
reported back the Toombs substitute to the Senate. 
It contained several things which I had voted against 
in committee, but had been overruled b}^ a majority 
of the members, and it was my duty as chairman of 
the Committee to report the bill back as it was agreed 
upon by them. The main point upon which I had 
been overruled was the question of population. In 
my report accompanying the Toombs bill, I said : 

" In the opinion of your Committee, whenever a con- 
stitution shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory 
to its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the 
genius of our institutions, the whole theory of our repub- 
lican system, imperatively demand that the voice of the 
people shall be fairly expressed, and their will embodied 
in that fundamental law, without fraud, or violence, or 
intimidation, or any other improper or unlawful in- 
fluence, and subject to no other restrictions than those 
imposed by the Constitution of the United States." 



30 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

There you find that we took it for granted that 
the constitution was to be submitted to the people, 
whether the bill was silent on the subject or not. 
Suppose I had reported it so, following the example 
of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, 
Adams, Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison, Tyler, Polk, 
Taylor, Fillmore, and Pierce, would that fact have 
been evidence of a conspiracy to force a constitution 
upon the whole people of Kansas against their will? 
If the charge which Mr. Lincoln makes be true against 
me, it is true against Zachary Taylor, Millard Fill- 
more, and every Whig President, as well as every 
Democratic President, and against Henry Clay, who, 
in the Senate or House, for forty years advocated 
bills similar to the one I reported, no one of them 
containing a clause compelling the submission of the 
constitution to the people. Are Mr. Lincoln and 
Mr. Trumbull prepared to charge upon all those 
eminent men, from the beginning of the government 
down to the present day, that the absence of a pro- 
vision compelling submission, in the various bills 
passed by them, authorizing the people of Territories 
to form State constitutions, is evidence of a corrupt 
design on their part to force a constitution upon an 
unwilling people ? 

I ask you to reflect on these things, for I tell 
you that there is a conspiracy to carry this election 
for the Black Republicans by slander, and not by 
fair means. Mr. Lincoln's speech this day is con- 
clusive evidence of the fact. He has devoted his 
entire time to an issue between Mr. Trumbull and 
myself, and has not uttered a word about the 



Stephen A. Douglas 3^ 

politics of the day. Are you going to elect Mr. 
Trumbull's colleague upon an issue between Mr. 
Trumbull and me ? I thought I was running against 
Abraham Lincoln, that he claimed to be my op- 
ponent, had challenged me to a discussion of the 
public questions of the day with him, and was dis- 
cussing these questions with me; but it turns out 
that his only hope is to ride into office on Trum- 
bull's back, who will carry him by falsehood. 

Permit me to pursue this subject a little further. 
An examination of the record proves that Trumbull's 
charge — that the Toombs bill originally contained 
a clause requiring the constitution to be submitted 
to the people — is false. The printed copy of the bill 
which Mr. Lincoln held up before you, and which he 
pretends contains such a clause, merely contains a 
clause requiring a submission of the land grant, and 
there is no clause in it requiring a submission of the 
constitution. Mr. Lincoln cannot find such a clause 
in it. My report shows that we took it for granted 
that the people would require a submission of the 
constitution, and secure it for themselves. There 
never was a clause in the Toombs bill requiring the 
constitution to be submitted; Trumbull knew it at 
the time, and his speech made on the night of its 
passage discloses the fact that he knew it was silent 
on the subject. Lincoln pretends, and tells you, 
that Trumbull has not changed his evidence in sup- 
port of his charge since he made his speech in 
Chicago. Let us see. The Chicago Times took up 
Trumbull's Chicago speech, compared it with the 
official records of Cone^'^'^s, and proved that speech 



32 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

to be false in its charge that the original Toombs bill 
required a submission of the constitution to the 
people. Trumbull then saw that he was caught, 
and his falsehood exposed, and he went to Alton, and, 
under the very walls of the penitentiary, made a new 
speech, in which he predicated his assault upon me 
in the allegation that I had caused to be voted into 
the Toombs bill a clause which prohibited the Con- 
vention from submitting the constitution to the 
people, and quoted what he pretended was the 
clause. Now, has not Mr. Trumbull entirely changed 
the evidence on which he bases his charge? The 
clause which he quoted in his Alton speech (which 
he has published and circulated broadcast over the 
State) as having been put into the Toombs bill by 
me, is in the following words: "And until the com- 
plete execution of this Act, no other election shall be 
held in said Territory." 

Trumbull says that the object of that amendment 
was to prevent the Convention from submitting the 
constitution to a vote of the people. 

Now, I will show you that when Trumbull made 
that statement at Alton he knew it to be untrue. I 
read from Trumbull's speech in the Senate on the 
Toombs bill on the night of its passage. He then 
said: 

" There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have dis- 
covered, about submitting the constitution, which is to 
be formed, to the people for their sanction or rejection. 
Perhaps the Convention will have the right to submit it, 
if it should think proper, but it is certainly not compelled 
to do so, according to the provisions of the bill." 



Stephen A. Douglas 33 

Thus you see that Trumbull, when the bill was on 
its passage in the Senate, said that it was silent on 
the subject of submission, and that there was nothing 
in the bill one way or the other on it. In his Alton 
speech he says there was a clause in the bill prevent- 
ing its submission to the people, and that I had it 
voted in as an amendment. Thus I convict him of 
falsehood and slander by quoting from him, on the 
passage of the Toombs bill in the Senate of the 
United States, his own speech, made on the night 
of July 2, 1856, and reported in the Congressional 
Globe for the first session of the thirty-fourth Con- 
gress, vol. 33. What will you think of a man who 
makes a false charge, and falsifies the records to 
prove it ? I will now show you that the clause which 
Trumbull says was put in the bill on my motion was 
never put in at all by me, but was stricken out on 
my motion, and another substituted in its place. I 
call your attention to the same volume of the Con- 
gressional Globe to which I have already referred, 
page 795, where you will find the following report of 
the proceedings of the Senate : 

" Mr. Douglas : I have an amendment to offer from 
the Committee on Territories. On page 8, section 11, 
strike out the words 'until the complete execution of 
this Act, no other election shall be held in said Territory,* 
and insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." 

You see from this that I moved to strike out the 
very words that Trumbull says I put in. The Com- 
mittee on Territories overruled me in committee, and 
put the clause in; but as soon as I got the bill back 



34 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

into the Senate, I moved to strike it out, and put 
another clause in its place. On the same page you 
will find that my amendment was agreed to unani- 
mously. I then offered another amendment, recog- 
nizing the right of the people of Kansas, under the 
Toom.bs bill, to order just such elections as they saw 
proper. You can find it on page 796 of the same 
volume. I will read it: 

" Mr. Douglas : I have another amendment to offer 
from the Committee, to follow the amendment which has 
been adopted. The bill reads now : ' And until the com 
plete execution of this Act, no other election shall be 
held in said Territory.' It has been suggested that it 
should be modified in this way, 'And to avoid conflict 
in the complete execution of this Act, all other elections 
in said Territory are hereby postponed until such time 
as said Convention shall appoint,' so that they can ap- 
point the day in the event that there should be a failure 
to come into the Union." 

The amendment was unanimously agreed to, — 
clearly and distinctly recognizing the right of the 
convention to order just as many elections as they 
saw proper in the execution of the act. Trumbull 
concealed in his Alton speech the fact that the clause 
he quoted had been stricken out in my motion, and 
the other fact that this other clause was put in the 
bill on my motion, and made the false charge that I 
incorporated into the bill a clause preventing sub- 
mission, in the face of the fact, that, on my mo- 
tion, the bill was so amended before it passed as to 
recognize in express words the right and duty of 
submission. 



Stephen A. Douglas 35 

On this record that I have produced before you, 
I repeat my charge that Trumbull did falsify the 
public records of the country, in order to make his 
charge against me, and I tell Mr. Abraham Lincoln 
that if he will examine these records, he will then 
know that what I state is true. Mr. Lincoln has this 
day indorsed Mr. Trumbull's veracity after he had 
my word for it that that veracity was proved to be 
violated and forfeited by the public records. It 
will not do for Mr. Lincoln, in parading his calumnies 
against me, to put Mr. Trumbull between him and 
the odium and responsibiHty which justly attaches to 
such calumnies. I tell him that I an/ as ready to 
prosecute the indorser as the maker of a forged note. 
I regret the necessity of occupying my time with 
these petty personal matters. It is unbecoming the 
dignity of a canvass for an office of the character for 
which we are candidates. When I commenced the 
canvass at Chicago, I spoke of Mr. Lincoln in terms 
of kindness as an old friend; I said that he was 
a good citizen, of unblemished character, against 
whom I had nothing to say. I repeated these com- 
plimentary remarks about him in my successive 
speeches, until he became the indorser for these and 
other slanders against me. If there is anything per- 
sonally disagreeable, uncourteous, or disreputable in 
these personahties, the sole responsibility rests on 
Mr. Lincoln, Mr. Trumbull, and their backers. 

I will show you another charge made by Mr. 
Lincoln against me, as an offset to his declaration 
of willingness to take back anything that is incor- 
rect, and to correct any false statement he may 



36 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

have made. He has several times charged that the 
Supreme Court, President Pierce, President Bu- 
chanan, and myself, at the time I introduced the 
Nebraska Bill in January, 1854, at Washington, 
entered into a conspiracy to establish slavery all 
over this country. I branded this charge as a false- 
hood, and then he repeated it, asked me to analyze 
its truth and answer it. I told him: "Mr. Lincoln, 
I know what you are after — you want to occupy 
my time in personal matters, to prevent me from 
showing up the revolutionary principles which the 
Abolition party — whose candidate you are— have 
proclaimed to the world." But he asked me to 
analyze his proof, and I did so. I called his atten- 
tion to the fact that at the time the Nebraska Bill 
was introduced, there was no such case as the Dred 
Scott case pending in the Supreme Court, nor was it 
brought there for years afterwards, and hence that 
it was impossible there could have been any con- 
spiracy between the judges of the Supreme Court 
and the other parties involved. I proved by the 
record that the charge was false, and what did he 
answer? Did he take it back like an honest man 
and say that he had been mistaken? No; he re- 
peated the charge, and said that, although there was 
no such case pending that year, there was an under- 
standing between the Democratic owners of Dred 
Scott and the judges of the Supreme Court and other 
parties involved, that the case should be brought up. 
I then demanded to know who these Democratic 
owners of Dred Scott were. He could not or would 
not tell; he did not know. In truth, there were no 



Stephen A. Douglas n 

Democratic owners of Dred Scott on the face of the 
land. Dred Scott was owned at that time by the 
Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Abolition member of Congress 
from Springfield, Massachusetts, and his wife; and 
Mr. Lincoln ought to have known that Dred Scott 
was so owned, for the reason that as soon as the 
decision was announced by the court Dr. Chaffee 
and his wife executed a deed emancipating him, and 
put that deed on record. It was a matter of pubHc 
record, therefore, that at the time the case was taken 
to the Supreme Court Dred Scott was owned by an 
Abolition member of Congress, a friend of Lincoln's 
and a leading man of his party, while the defence was 
conducted by Abolition lawyers,— and thus the Aboli- 
tionists managed both sides of the case. I have ex- 
posed these facts to Mr. Lincoln, and yet he will not 
withdraw his charge of conspiracy. I now submit 
to you whether you can place any confidence in a 
man who continues to make a charge when its utter 
falsity is proven by the public records. I will state 
another fact to show how utterly reckless and un- 
scrupulous this charge against the Supreme Court, 
President Pierce, President Buchanan, and myself is. 
Lincoln says that President Buchanan was in the 
conspiracy at Washington in the winter of 1854, 
when the Nebraska Bill was introduced. The history 
of this country shows that James Buchanan was at 
that time representing this country at the Court of 
St. James, Great Britain, with distinguished ability 
and usefulness, that he had not been in the United 
States for nearly a year previous, and that he did 
not return until about three years after. Yet Mr. 



38 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Lincoln keeps repeating this charge of conspiracy 
against Mr. Buchanan when the public records prove 
it to be untrue. Having proved it to be false as far 
as the Supreme Court and President Buchanan are 
concerned, I drop it, leaving the public to say 
whether I, by myself, without their concurrence, 
could have gone into a conspiracy with them. M)- 
friends, you see that the object clearly is to conduct 
the canvass on personal matters, and hunt me down 
with charges that are proven to be false by the public 
records of the country. I am willing to throw open 
my whole public and private life to the inspection of 
any man or all men who desire to investigate it. 
Having resided among you twenty -five years, during 
nearly the whole of which time a public man, ex- 
posed to more assaults, perhaps more abuse, than 
any man living of my age, or who ever did live, and 
having survived it all and still commanded your 
confidence, I am willing to trust to your knowledge 
of me and my public conduct without making any 
more defence against these assaults. 

Fellow-citizens, I came here for the purpose of dis- 
cussing the leading political topics which now agitate 
the country. I have no charges to make against 
Mr. Lincoln, none against Mr. Trumbull, and none 
against any man who is a candidate, except in re- 
pelling their assaults upon me. If Mr. Lincoln is 
a man of bad character, I leave you to find it out; 
if his votes in the past are not satisfactory, I leave 
others to ascertain the fact; if his course on the 
Mexican war was not in accordance with your 
notions of patriotism and fidelity to our own country 



Stephen A. Douglas 39 

as against a public enemy, I leave you to ascertain 
the fact. I have no assaults to make upon him, 
except to trace his course on the questions that now 
divide the country and engross so much of the 
people's attention. 

You know that prior to 1854 this country was 
divided into two great political parties, one the Whig, 
the other the Democratic. I, as a Democrat for 
twenty years prior to that time, had been in public 
discussions in this State as an advocate of Demo- 
cratic principles, and I can appeal with confidence to 
every old-line Whig within the hearing of my voice 
to bear testimony that during all that period I 
fought you Whigs like a man on every question 
that separated the two parties. I had the highest 
respect for Henry Clay as a gallant party leader, as 
an eminent statesman, and as one of the bright 
ornaments of this country; but I conscientiously 
believed that the Democratic party was right on 
the questions which separated the Democrats from 
the Whigs. The man does not live who can say 
that I ever personally assailed Henry Clay or Daniel 
Webster, or any one of the leaders of that great party, 
whilst I combated with all my energy the measures 
they advocated. What did we differ about in those 
days? Did Whigs and Democrats differ about this 
slavery question? On the contrary, did we not, in 
1850, unite to a man in favor of that system of 
Compromise measures which Mr. Clay introduced, 
Webster defended, Cass supported, and Fillmore ap- 
proved and made the law of the land by his signature ? 
While we agreed on those Compromise measures, we 



40 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

differed about a bank, the tariff, distribution, the 
specie circular, the sub-treasury, and other questions 
of that description. Now, let me ask you which one 
of those questions on which Whigs and Democrats 
then differed now remains to divide the two great 
parties ? Every one of those questions which divided 
Whigs and Democrats has passed away, the country 
has outgrown them, they have passed into history. 
Hence it is immaterial whether you were right or I 
was right on the bank, the sub-treasury, and other 
questions, because they no longer continue living 
issues. What, then, has taken the place of those 
questions about which we once differed? The 
slavery question has now become the leading and 
controlling issue ; that question on which you and I 
agreed, on which the Whigs and Democrats united, 
has now become the leading issue between the 
national Democracy on the one side and the Re- 
publican, or Abolition, party on the other. 

Just recollect for a moment the memorable contest 
of 1850, when this country was agitated from its 
centre to its circumference by the slavery agitation. 
All eyes in this nation were then turned to the three 
great lights that survived the days of the Revolution. 
They looked to Clay, then in retirement at Ashland, 
and to Webster and Cass, in the United States Senate. 
Clay had retired to Ashland, having, as he supposed, 
performed his mission on earth, and was preparing 
himself for a better sphere of existence in another 
world. In that retirement he heard the discordant, 
harsh, and grating sounds of sectional strife and dis- 
union, and he aroused and came forth and resumed 



Stephen A. Douglas 41 

his seat in the Senate, that great theatre of his great 
deeds. From the moment that Clay arrived among 
us he became the leader of all the Union men, 
whether Whigs or Democrats. For nine months we 
each assembled, each day, in the council-chamber. 
Clay in the chair, with Cass upon his right hand, and 
Webster upon his left, and the Democrats and Whigs 
gathered around, forgetting differences, and only 
animated by one common, patriotic sentiment, to 
devise means and measures by which we could defeat 
the mad and revolutionary scheme of the Northern 
Abolitionists and Southern Disunionists. We did 
devise those means. Clay brought them forward, 
Cass advocated them, the Union Democrats and 
Union Whigs voted for them, Fillmore signed them, 
and they gave peace and quiet to the country.' 
Those Compromise measures of 1850 were founded 
upon the great fundamental principle that the people 
of each State and each Territory ought to be left free 
to form and regulate their own domestic institutions 
in^ their own way, subject only to the Federal Con- 
stitution. I will ask every old-line Democrat and 
every old-line Whig within the hearing of my voice if 
I have not truly stated the issues as they then pre- 
sented themselves to the country. You recollect 
that the AboHtionists raised a howl of indignation, 
and cried for vengeance and the destruction of Dem- 
ocrats and Whigs both, who supported those Com- 
promise measures of 1850. When I returned home 
to Chicago, I found the citizens inflamed and infur- 
iated against the authors of those great measures. 
Being the only man in that city who was held 



42 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

responsible for affirmative votes on all those measures, 
I came forward and addressed the assembled inhabit- 
ants, defended each and every one of Clay's Com- 
promise measures as they passed the Senate and the 
House and were approved by President Fillmore. 
Previous to that time, the city council had passed 
resolutions nullifying the Act of Congress, and in- 
structing the police to withhold all assistance from 
its execution; but the people of Chicago listened to 
my defence, and, like candid, frank, conscientious 
men, when they became convinced that they had 
done an injustice to Clay, Webster, Cass, and all of us 
who had supported those measures, they repealed 
their nullifying resolutions, and declared that the 
laws should be executed and the supremacy of the 
Constitution maintained. Let it always be recorded 
in history to the immortal honor of the people of Chi- 
cago that they returned to their duty when they 
found that they were wrong, and did justice to those 
whom they had blamed and abused unjustly. 
When the Legislature of this State assembled that 
year, they proceeded to pass resolutions approving 
the Compromise measures of 1850. When the Whig 
party assembled in 1852 at Baltimore in National 
Convention for the last time, to nominate Scott for 
the presidency, they adopted as a part of their plat- 
form the Compromise measures of 1850, as the car- 
dinal plank upon which every Whig would stand, 
and by which he would regulate his future conduct. 
When the Democratic party assembled at the same 
place one month after, to nominate General Pierce, 
we adopted the same platform so far as those Com- 



Stephen A. Douglas 43 

promise measures were concerned, agreeing that we 
would stand by those glorious measures as a cardinal 
article in the Democratic faith. Thus you see that 
in 1852 all the old Whigs and all the old Democrats 
stood on a common plank so far as this slavery ques- 
tion was concerned, differing on other questions. 

Now, let me ask, how is it that since that time so 
many of you Whigs have wandered from the true 
path marked out by Clay, and carried out broad and 
wide by the great Webster ? How is it that so many 
old-line Democrats have abandoned the old faith of 
their party, and joined with Abolitionism and Free- 
soilism to overturn the platform of the old Demo- 
crats, and the platform of the old Whigs? You 
cannot deny that since 1854 there has been a great 
revolution on this one question. How has it been 
brought about? I answer, that no sooner was the 
sod grown green over the grave of the immortal Clay, 
no sooner was the rose planted on the tomb of the 
godlike Webster, than many of the leaders of the 
Whig party, such as Seward of New York, and his 
followers, led off and attempted to Abolitionize the 
Whig party, and transfer all your old Whigs, bound 
hand and foot, into the Abolition camp. Seizing 
hold of the temporary excitement produced in this 
country by the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, the 
disappointed politicians in the Democratic party 
united with the disappointed politicians in the Whig 
party, and endeavored to form a new party, com- 
posed of all the Abolitionists, of Abolitionized Demo- 
crats and Abolitionized Whigs, banded together in 
an Abolition platform. 



44 Lincoln and Douoflas Debates 



fc>' 



And who led that crusade against national 
principles in this State ? I answer, Abraham Lincoln 
on behalf of the Whigs, and Lyman Trumbtill on 
behalf of the Democrats, formed a scheme by which 
they would Abolitionize the two great parties in this 
State, on condition that Lincoln should be sent to 
the United States Senate in place of General Shields, 
and that Trumbull should go to Congress from the 
Belleville District until I would be accommodating 
enough either to die or resign for his benefit, and 
then he was to go to the Senate in my place. You 
all remember that during the year 1854 these two 
worthy gentlemen, Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Trumbull, 
one an old-line Whig and the other an old-line Demo- 
crat, were hunting in partnership to elect a Legisla- 
ture against the Democratic party. I canvassed the 
State that year from the time I returned home until 
the election came off, and spoke in every county that 
I could reach during that period. In the northern 
part of the State I found Lincoln's ally in the person 
of Fred Douglass, the negro, preaching Abolition 
doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same 
principles down here, and Trumbull, a little farther 
down, was advocating the election of members to the 
Legislature who would act in concert with Lincoln's 
and Fred Douglass's friends. I witnessed an effort 
made at Chicago by Lincoln's then associates, and 
now supporters, to put Fred Douglass, the negro, on 
the stand, at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the 
illustrious General Cass when he was addressing the 
people there. They had the same negro hunting 
me down, and they now have a negro traversing the 



Stephen A. Douglas 45 

northern counties of the State and speaking in be- 
half of Lincoln. Lincoln knows that when we were 
at Freeport in joint discussion there was a dis- 
tinguished colored friend of his there then who was 
on the stump for him, and who made a speech there 
the night before we spoke, and another the night 
after, a short distance from Freeport, in favor of 
Lincoln ; and in order to. show how much interest 
the colored brethren felt in the success of their 
brother Abe, I have with me here, and would read it 
if it would not occupy too much of my time, a speech 
made by Fred Douglass in Poughkeepsie, N. Y., a 
short time since, to a large convention in which he 
conjures all the friends of negro equality and negro 
citizenship to rally as one man around Abraham 
Lincoln, the perfect embodiment of their principles, 
and by all means to defeat Stephen A. Douglas. Thus 
you find that this Republican party in the northern 
part of the State had colored gentlemen for their ad- 
vocates in 1854, in company with Lincoln and Trum- 
bull, as they have now. When, in October, 1854, I 
went down to Springfield to attend the State Fair, I 
found the leaders of this party all assembled together 
under the title of an anti-Nebraska meeting. It was 
Black Republicans up north and anti-Nebraska at 
Springfield. I found Lovejoy, a high-priest of Abo- 
litionism, and Lincoln, one of the leaders who was 
towing the old-line Whigs into the Abolition camp, 
and Trumbull, Sidney Breese, and Governor Rey- 
nolds, all making speeches against the Democratic 
party and myself, at the same place and in the same 
cause. The same men who are now fighting the 



46 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Democratic party and the regular Democratic nom- 
inees in this State were fighting us then. They 
did not then acknowledge that they had become 
Abolitionists, and many of them deny it now. 
Breese, Dougherty, and Reynolds were then fighting 
the Democracy under the title of anti-Nebraska men, 
and now they are fighting the Democracy under the 
pretence that they are Simon pure Democrats, saying 
that they are authorized to have every office-holder 
in Illinois beheaded who prefers the election of 
Douglas to that of Lincoln or the success of the 
Democratic ticket in preference to the Abolition 
ticket for members of Congress, State officers, mem- 
bers of the Legislature, or any office in the State. 
They canvassed the State against us in 1854, as they 
are doing now, owning different names and different 
principles in different localities, but having a common 
object in view, viz. : the defeat of all men holding 
national principles in opposition to this sectional 
Abolition party. They carried the Legislature in 
1854, and when it assembled in Springfield they pro- 
ceeded to elect a United States Senator, all voting for 
Lincoln, with one or two exceptions, which excep- 
tions prevented them from quite electing him. And 
why should they not elect him ? Had not Trumbull 
agreed that Lincoln should have Shields's place? 
Had not the Abolitionists agreed to it? Was it not 
the solemn compact, the condition on which Lincoln 
agreed to Abolitionize the old Whigs, that he should 
be Senator? Still, Trumbull, having control of a few 
Abolitionized Democrats, would not allow them all 
to vote for Lincoln on any one ballot, and thus kept 



Stephen A. Douglas 47 

him for some time within one or two votes of an 
election, until he worried out Lincoln's friends, and 
compelled them to drop him and elect Trumbull, in 
violation of the bargain. I desire to read you a 
piece of testimony in confirmation of the notoriously 
public facts which I have stated to you. Colonel 
James H. Matheny, of Springfield, is, and for twenty 
years has been, the confidential personal and political 
friend and manager of Mr. Lincoln. Matheny is this 
very day the candidate of the Republican or Aboli- 
tion party for Congress against the gallant Major 
Thos. L. Harris, in the Springfield District, and is 
making speeches for Lincoln and against me. I will 
read you the testimony of Matheny about this bar- 
gain between Lincoln and Trumbull when they 
undertook to Abolitionize Whigs and Democrats 
only four years ago. Matheny, being mad at Trum- 
bull for having played a Yankee trick on Lincoln, 
exposed the bargain in a public speech two years 
ago, and I will read the published report of that 
speech, the correctness of which Mr. Lincoln will 
not deny: 

" The Whigs, Abolitionists, Know-Not hings, and rene- 
gade Democrats made a solemn compact for the purpose 
of carrying this State against the Democracy, on this 
plan: ist, that they would all combine and elect Mr. 
Trumbull to Congress, and thereby carry his district for 
the Legislature, in order to throw all the strength that 
could be obtained into that body against the Democrats ; 
2d, that when the Legislature should meet, the officers 
of that body, such as Speaker, clerks, door-keepers, etc. 
would be given to the Abolitionists; and, 3d, that the 



48 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Whigs were to have the United States Senator. That 
accordingly, in good faith, Trumbull was elected to 
Congress, and his district carried for the Legislature; 
and when it convened, the Abolitionists got all the 
officers of that body, and thus far the 'bond' was fairly 
executed. The Whigs, on their part, demanded the 
election of Abraham Lincoln to the United States Senate, 
that the bond might be fulfilled, the other parties to the 
contract having already secured to themselves all that 
was called for. But, in the most perfidious manner, they 
refused to elect Mr. Lincoln; and the mean, low-lived, 
sneaking Trumbull succeeded, by pleading all that was 
required by any party, in thrusting Lincoln aside, and 
foisting himself, an excrescence from the rotten bowels 
of the Democracy, into the United States Senate; and 
thus it has ever been, that an honest man makes a bad 
bargain when he conspires or contracts with rogues." 

Lincoln's confidential friend Matheny thought that 
Lincoln made a bad bargain when he conspired with 
such rogues as Tmnibull and the Abolitionists. I 
would like to know^ whether Lincoln had as high 
opinion of Trumbull's veracity when the latter 
agreed to support him for the Senate and then 
cheated him as he does now, when Trumbull comes 
forward and makes charges against me. You could 
not then prove Trumbull an honest man either by 
Lincoln, by Matheny, or by any of Lincoln's friends. 
They charged ever}^vhere that Trumbull had cheated 
them out of the bargain, and Lincoln found sure 
enough that it was a bad bargain to contract and 
conspire with rogues. 

And now I will explain to you what has been a 
mystery all over the State and Union — the reason 



Stephen A. Douglas 49 

why Lincoln was nominated for the United States 
Senate by the Black Republican Convention. You 
know it has never been usual for any party or any 
convention to nominate a candidate for United 
States Senator. Probably this was the first time 
that such a thing was ever done. The Black Re- 
publican Convention had not been called for that 
purpose, bat to nominate a State ticket, and every 
man was surprised and many disgusted when Lincoln 
was nominated. Archie Williams thought he was 
entitled to it, Browning knew that he deserved it, 
Wentworth was certain that he would get it. Peck 
had hopes, Judd felt sure that he was the man, and 
Palmer had claims and had made arrangements to 
secure it; but to their utter amazement, Lincoln 
was nominated by the Convention, and not only that, 
but he received the nomination unanimously, by a 
resolution declaring that Abraham Lincoln was ' ' the 
first, last, and only choice" of the Republican party. 
How did this occur? Wh}^, because they could not 
get Lincoln's friends to make another bargain with 
"rogues," unless the whole party would come up 
as one man and pledge their honor that they would 
stand by Lincoln first, last, and all the time, and 
that he should not be cheated by Love joy this time, 
as he was by Trumbull before. Thus, by passing this 
resolution, the Abolitionists are all for him. Love joy 
and Famsworth are canvassing for him, Giddings is 
ready to come here in his behalf, and the negro 
speakers are already on the stump for him, and he is 
sure not to be cheated this time. He would not go 
into the arrangement until he got their bond for it. 



50 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

and Trumbull is compelled now to take the stump, 
get up false charges against me, and travel all over 
the State to try and elect Lincoln, in order to keep 
Lincoln's friends quiet about the bargain in which 
Trumbull cheated them four years ago. You see, 
now, why it is that Lincoln and Trumbull are so 
mighty fond of each other. They have entered into 
a conspiracy to break me down by these assaults upon 
my public character, in order to draw my attention 
from a fair exposure of the mode in which they 
attempted to Abolitionize the old Whig and the old 
Democratic parties and lead them captive into the 
Abolition camp. Do you not all remember that 
Lincoln went around here four years ago making 
speeches to you, and telling that you should all go 
for the Abolition ticket, and swearing that he was as 
good a Whig as he ever was? and that Trumbull 
went all over the State making pledges to the old 
Democrats, and trying to coax them into the Aboli- 
tion camp, swearing by his Maker, with the uplifted 
hand, that he was still a Democrat, always intended 
to be, and that never would he desert the Demo- 
cratic party ? He got your votes to elect an Aboli- 
tion Legislature, which passed Abolition resolutions, 
attempted to pass Abolition laws, and sustained 
Abolitionists for office. State and National. Now 
the same game is attempted to be played over again. 
Then Lincoln and Trumbull made captives of the old 
Whigs and old Democrats and carried them into the 
Abolition camp, where Father Giddings, the high- 
priest of Abolitionism, received and christened them 
in the dark cause just as fast as they were brought in. 



Stephen A. Douglas 51 

Giddings found the converts so numerous that he had 
to have assistance, and he sent for John P. Hale, N. 
P. Banks, Chase, and other Abohtionists, and they 
came on, and with Lovejoy and Fred Douglass, the 
negro, helped to baptize these new converts as Lin- 
coln, Trumbull, Breese, Reynolds, and Dougherty 
could capture them and bring them within the 
Abolition clutch. Gentlemen, they are now around, 
making the same kind of speeches. Trumbull was 
down in Monroe County the other day, assailing me, 
and making a speech in favor of Lincoln ; and I will 
show you under what notice his meeting was called. 
You see these people are Black Republicans or Aboli- 
tionists up north, while at Springfield to-day they 
dare not call their Convention "RepubHcan," but 
are obliged to say "a Convention of all men opposed 
to the Democratic party"; and in Monroe County 
and lower Egypt Trumbull advertises their meetings 
as follows: 

" A meeting of the Free Democracy will take place at 
Waterloo on Monday, September 21st inst., whereat 
Hon. Lyman Trumbull, Hon. John Baker, and others will 
address the people upon the different political topics of 
the day. Members of all parties are cordially invited to 
be present, and hear and determine for themselves. 

" The Free Democracy. 

"September 9, 1858." 

Did you ever before hear of this new party, called 
the "Free Democracy"? 

What object have these Black Republicans in 
changing their name in every county? They have 



52 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

one name in the north, another in the centre, and 
another in the south. When I used to practise law 
before my distinguished judicial friend whom I 
recognize in the crowd before me, if a man was 
charged with horse-stealing, and the proof showed 
that he went by one name in Stephenson County, 
another in Sangamon, a third in Monroe, and a fourth 
in Randolph, we thought that the fact of his chang- 
ing his name so often to avoid detection was pretty 
strong evidence of his guilt. I would like to know 
why it is that this great Free-soil Abolition party is 
not willing to avow the same name in all parts of the 
State? If this party believes that its course is just, 
why does it not avow the same principles in the 
North and in the South, in the East and in the West, 
wherever the American flag waves over American 
soil? 

A voice: The party does not call itself Black Re- 
publican in the North. 

Mr. Douglas: Sir, if you will get a copy of the 
paper published at Waukegan, fifty miles from 
Chicago, which advocates the election of Mr. Lincoln, 
and has his name flying at its mast-head, you will 
find that it declares that "this paper is devoted to 
the cause" of Black Republicanism. I had a copy 
of it, and intended to bring it down here into Egypt 
to let you see what name the party rallied under up 
in the northern part of the State, and to convince you 
that their principles are as different in the two sec- 
tions of the State as is their name. I am soriy that 
I have mislaid it and have not got it here. Their 
principles in the north are jet-black, in the centre 



Stephen A. Douglas 53 

they are in color a decent mulatto, and in lower 
Egypt they are almost white. Why, I admired many 
of the white sentiments contained in Lincoln's speech 
at Jonesboro, and could not help but contrast them 
with the speeches of the same distinguished orator 
made in the northern part of the State. Down here 
he denies that the Black Republican party is opposed 
to the admission of any more slave States, under any 
circumstances, and says that they are willing to allow 
the people of each State, when it wants to come into 
the Union, to do just as it pleases on the question of 
slavery. In the north, you find Lovejoy, their candi- 
date for Congress in the Bloomington District, Farns- 
worth, their candidate in the Chicago District, and 
Washbume, their candidate in the Galena District 
all declaring that never will they consent, under any 
circumstances, to admit another slave State, even if 
the people want it. Thus, while they avow one set of 
i principles up there, they avow another and entirely 
different set down here. And here let me recall to 
Mr. Lincoln the Scriptural quotation which he has 
applied to the Federal Government, that a house 
divided against itself cannot stand, and ask him how 
does he expect this Abolition party to stand when in 
one half of the State it advocates a set of principles 
which it has repudiated in the other half. 

I am told that I have but eight minutes more I 
would like to talk to you an hour and a half longer 
but I will make the best use I can of the remaining 
eight minutes. Mr. Lincoln said in his first re- 
marks that he was not in favor of the social and 
political equality of the negro with the white man 



54 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Everywhere up north he has declared that he was not 
in favor of the social and political equality of the 
negro, but he would not say whether or not he was 
opposed to negroes voting and negro citizenship. I 
want to know whether he is for or against negro 
citizenship. He declared his utter opposition to the 
Dred Scott decision, and advanced as a reason that 
the court had decided that it was not possible for a 
negro to be a citizen under the Constitution of the 
United States. If he is opposed to the Dred Scott 
decision for that reason, he must be in favor of con- 
ferring the right and privilege of citizenship upon the 
negro. I have been trying to get an answer from 
him on that point, but have never yet obtained one, 
and I will show you why. In every speech he made 
in the north he quoted the Declaration of Independ- 
ence to prove that all men were created equal, and 
insisted that the phrase "all men " included the negro 
as well as the white man, and that the equality rested 
upon divine law. Here is what he said on that 
point : 

" I should like to know if, taking this old Declaration 
of Independence, which declares that all men are equal 
upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will 
it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why 
may not another say it does not mean some other man? 
If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute 
book in which we find it and tear it out." 

Lincoln maintains there that the Declaration of 
Independence asserts that the negro is equal to the 
white man, and that under divine law; and if he 



Stephen A. Douglas 55 

believes so it was rational for him to advocate negro 
citizenship, which when allowed puts the negro 
on an equaUty under the law. I say to you in all 
frankness, gentlemen, that in my opinion a negro is 
not a citizen, cannot be, and ought not to be under 
the Constitution of the United States. I will not 
even qualify my opinion to meet the declaration of 
one of the judges of the Supreme Court in the Dred 
Scott case, that "a negro descended from African 
parents, who was imported into this country as a 
slave, is not a citizen, and cannot be." I say that 
this government was established on the white basis. 
It was made by white men for the benefit of white 
men and their posterity forever, and never should be 
administered by any except white men. I declare 
that a negro ought not to be a citizen, whether his 
parents were imported into this country as slaves or 
not, or whether or not he was bom here. It does not 
depend upon the place a negro's parents were born, 
or whether they were slaves or not, but upon the fact 
that he is a negro, belonging to a race incapable of 
self-government, and for that reason ought not to 
be on an equality with white men. 

My friends, I am sorry that I have not time to pur- 
sue this argument further, as I might have done but 
for the fact that Mr. Lincoln compelled me to occupy 
a portion of my time in repelling those gross slanders 
and falsehoods that Trumbull has invented against 
me and put in circulation. In conclusion, let me 
ask you why should this government be divided by a 
geographical line — arraying all men North in one 
great hostile party against all men South? Mr. 



56 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Lincoln tells you in his speech at Springfield that 
a house divided against itself cannot stand ; that this 
government divided into free and slave States 
cannot endure permanently; that they must either 
be all free or all slave ; all one thing or all the other. 
Why cannot this government endure divided into 
free and slave States, as our fathers made it? When 
this government was established by Washington, 
Jefferson, Madison, Jay, Hamilton, Franklin, and 
the other sages and patriots of that day, it was com- 
posed of free States and slave States, bound to- 
gether by one common Constitution. We have 
existed and prospered from that day to this thus 
divided, and have increased with a rapidity never 
before equalled, in wealth, the extension of territory, 
and all the elements of power and greatness, until 
we have become the first nation on the face of the 
globe. Why can we not thus continue to prosper? 
We can if we will live up to and execute the govern- 
ment upon those principles upon which our fathers 
established it. During the whole period of our 
existence Divine Providence has smiled upon us, and 
showered upon our nation richer and more abundant 
blessings than have ever been conferred upon any 
other. 



MR. LINCOLN S REJOINDER. 

Fellow-Citizens : It follows as a matter of course 
that a half -hour answer to a speech of an hour and a 
half can be but a very hurried one. I shall only be 



Abraham Lincoln 57 

able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by 
Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, 
while I shall have to totally omit others for the want 
of time. 

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not 
been able to get from me an answer to the question 
whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So far 
as I know the Judge never asked me the question 
before. He shall have no occasion to ever ask it 
again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in 
favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an 
occasion for saying a few words upon the subject. 
I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, which has 
been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided 
that a negro could not possibly be made a citizen; 
and without saying what was my ground of com- 
plaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground 
of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing 
manufactured nearly everything that he ever says 
about my disposition to produce an equality between 
the negroes and the white people. If any one will 
read my speech, he will find I mentioned that as one of 
the points decided in the course of the Supreme Court 
opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. 
But Judge Douglas tells the people what my objection 
was when I did not tell them myself. Now, my opin- 
ion is that the different States have the power to 
make a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the 
United States if they choose. The Dred Scott de- 
cision decides that they have not that power. If the 
State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to 
the exercise of it. That is all I have to sav about it. 



5^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my 
speeches north and my speeches south ; that he had 
heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north and 
recently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a 
very different cast of sentiment in the speeches made 
at the different points. I will not charge upon Judge 
Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call 
upon every fair-minded man to take these speeches 
and read them, and I dare him to point out any differ- 
ence between my speeches north and south. While I 
am here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the 
time, in regard to the latter portion of the Judge's 
speech, which was a sort of declamation in reference 
to my having said I entertained the belief that this 
government would not endure half slave and half 
free. I have said so, and I did not say it without 
what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhaps 
would require more time than I have now to set forth 
these reasons in detail; but let me ask you a few 
questions. Have we ever had any peace on this 
slavery question ? When are we to have peace upon 
it, if it is kept in the position it now occupies ? How 
are we ever to have peace upon it? That is an 
important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, 
and allow Judge Douglas and his friends to march 
on in their present career until they plant the institu- 
tion all over the nation, here and wherever else our 
flag waves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. 
But let me ask Judge Douglas how he is going to get 
the people to do that? They have been wrangling 
over this question for at least forty years. This was 
the cause of the agitation resulting in the Missouri 



Abraham Lincoln 59 

Compromise; this produced the troubles at the 
annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the terri- 
tory acquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was 
the trouble which was quieted by the Compromise of 
1850, when it was settled "forever " as both the great 
political parties declared in their National Conven- 
tions. That "forever" turned out to be just four 
years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. 
When is it likely to come to an end ? He introduced 
the Nebraska Bill in 1854 to put another end to the 
slavery agitation. He promised that it would fin- 
ish it all up immediately, and he has never made a 
speech since, imtil he got into a quarrel with the 
President about the Lecompton Constitution, in 
which he has not declared that we are just at the end 
of the slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think 
last winter, he did say that he did n't quite see when 
the end of the slavery agitation would come. Now 
he tells us again that it is all over and the people of 
Kansas have voted down the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion. How is it over? That was only one of the 
attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation 
— one of these "final settlements." Is Kansas in the 
Union? Has she formed a constitution that she is 
likely to come in under? Is not the slavery agitation 
still an open question in that Territory? Has the 
voting down of that constitution put an end to all the 
trouble? Is that more likely to settle it than every 
one of these previous attempts to settle the slavery 
agitation? Now, at this day in the history of the 
world we can no more foretell where the end of this 
slavery agitation will be than we can see the end of 



6o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill was intro- 
duced four years and a half ago, and if the agitation is 
ever to come to an end we may say we are four years 
and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can say we 
are four years and a half nearer the end of the world, 
and we can just as clearly see the end of the world 
as we can see the end of this agitation. The Kansas 
settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas should 
sink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the 
earth's surface, this vexed question would still be 
among us. I say, then, there is no way of putting an 
end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it 
back upon the basis where our fathers placed it; no 
wa}^ but to keep it out of our new Territories, — to 
restrict it forever to the old States where it now 
exists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief 
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. That 
is one way of putting an end to the slavery agitation. 
The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge 
Douglas and his friends have their way and plant 
slavery over all the States ; cease speaking of it as in 
any way a wrong ; regard slavery as one of the com- 
mon matters of property, and speak of negroes as 
we do of our horses and cattle. But while it drives 
on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and as 
it has driven for the last five years, I have ventured 
the opinion, and I say to-day, that we will have no 
end to the slavery agitation until it takes one turn or 
the other, I do not mean that when it takes a turn 
toward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in 
a year, nor in two years. I do not suppose that in 
the most peaceful way ultimate extinction would 



Abraham Lincoln 6i 

occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that 
it will occur in the best way for both races, in God's 
own good time, I have no doubt. But, my friends, 
I have used up more of my time than I intended on 
this point. 

Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and 
myself having made a bargain to sell out the entire 
Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: Judge 
. Douglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his 
i charge, except the speech Matheny is said to have 
I made in 1856, in which he told a cock-and-bull story 
: of that sort, upon the same moral principles that 
I Judge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple 
I truth. I do not care greatly for the story, but this is 
I the truth of it: and I have twice told Judge Douglas 
I to his face that from beginning to end there is not one 
!word of truth in it. I have called upon him for the 
I proof, and he does not at all meet me as Trumbull 
I met him upon that of which we were just talking, by 
producing the record. He did n't bring the record 
because there was no record for him to bring. When 
he asks if I am ready to indorse Trumbull's veracity 
after he has broken a bargain with me, I reply that 
if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would 
not be likely to indorse his veracity; but I am ready 
to mdorse his veracity because neither in that thing, 
Hor tn any other, in all the years that I have known 
iLyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his 
'word or tell a falsehood large or small. It is for that 
reason that I indorse Lyman Trumbull. 

Mr. James Brown (Douglas postmaster): What 
loes Ford's History say about him? 



62 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Mr. Lincoln : Some gentleman asks me what 
Ford's History says about him. My own recollec- 
tion is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in ver}^ dis- 
respectful terms in several portions of his book, mtd 
that he talks a great deal worse of Judge Douglas. I 
refer you, sir, to the History for examination. 

Judge Douglas complains at considerable length 
about a disposition on the part of Trumbull and 
myself to attack him personally. I want to attend 
to that suggestion a moment. I don't want to be 
unjustly acciised of dealing illiberally or unfairly 
with an adversary, either in court or in a political 
canvass or anywhere else. I would despise m^^self 
if I supposed myself read}^ to deal less liberally with 
an adversary than I was willing to be treated myself. 
Judge Douglas in a general way, without putting it 
in a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in 
reference to the Mexican War. He does not take the 
responsibility of putting it in a very definite form, 
but makes a general reference to it. That charge is 
more than ten years old. He complains of Trum- 
bull and myself because he says we bring charges 
against him one or two years old. He knows, too, 
that in regard to the Mexican War story the more 
respectable papers of his own party throughout the 
State have been compelled to take it back and 
acknowledge that it was a lie. 

[Here Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the 
platform, and, selecting Hon. Orlando B. Ficklin, 
led him forward and said:] 

I do not mean to do anything with Mr. Ficklin 
except to present his face and tell you that he 



Abraham Lincoln 63 

personally knows it to be a lie! He was a member of 
Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and 
[FickUn] knows that whenever there was an attempt 
to procure a vote of mine which would indorse the 
origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such 
indorsement and voted against it; but I never 
voted against the supplies for the army, and he 
knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever 
a dollar was asked by way of compensation or other- 
wise for the benefit of the soldiers / gave all the votes 
that Ficklin or Douglas did, and perhaps more. 

Mr. Ficklin: My friends, I wish to say this in 
reference to the matter: Mr. Lincoln and myself 
are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglas 
and myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my re- 
collection is that when Ashmun's resolution [amend- 
ment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun of Massachusetts, 
in which he declared that the Mexican War was 
unnecessary and unconstitutionally commenced by 
the President —my recollection is that Mr. Lincoln 
voted for that resolution. 

Mr. Lincoln: That is the truth. Now, you all 
remember that was a resolution censuring the Presi- 
dent for the manner in which the war was begun. 
You know they have charged that I voted against 
the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who 
were out fighting the battles of their country. I say 
that Ficklin knows it is false. When that charge 
was brought forward by the Chicago Times, the 
Springfield Register [Dotiglas's organ] reminded the 
Times that the charge really applied to John Henry; 
and I do know that John Henry is nmu making 



64 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If 
the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of set- 
off to what I said to-day in reference to Trumbtiirs 
charge, then I remind him that he made this charge 
before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought 
this forward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to 
face; and in the opening speech that Judge Douglas 
made he attacked me in regard to a matter ten years 
old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about 
people making charges against him only two years old ! 
The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I 
should have dwelt upon this charge of Trumbull's 
at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my opening 
speech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said 
that when Judge Douglas was speaking at places 
where I spoke on the succeeding day he used very 
harsh language about this charge. Two or three 
times afterward I said I had confidence in Judge 
Trumbull's veracity and intelligence; and my own 
opinion was, from what I knew of the character of 
Judge Trumbull, that he would vindicate his posi- 
tion and prove whatever he had stated to be true. 
This I repeated two or three times; and then I 
dropped it, without saying anything more on the 
subject for weeks — perhaps a month. I passed it by 
without noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, 
Judge Douglas in the plenitude of his power is not 
willing to answer Trumbull and let me alone, but he 
comes out there and uses this language : ' ' He should 
not hereafter occupy his time in refuting such 
charges made by Trumbull but that, Lincoln hav- 
ing indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, 



Abraham Lincoln 65 

he should hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the 
slanders." What was Lincoln to do? Did he not 
do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meeting 
Judge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the 
responsibility? I ask a candid audience whether in 
j donig thus Judge Douglas was not the assailant rather 
: than I ? Here I meet him face to face, and say I am 
ready to take the responsibility, so far as it rests on 
me. 

Having done so I ask the attention of this audience 
to the question whether I have succeeded in sustain- 
: mg the charge, and whether Judge Douglas has at all 
succeeded m rebutting it? You all heard me call 
upon hmi to say which of these pieces of evidence was 
a forgery. Does he say that what I present here 
as a copy of the original Toombs bill is a forgery? 
Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill 
reported by himself is a forgery, or what is pre- 
sented as a transcript from the Globe of the quota- 
tions from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he 
say the quotations from his own speech are forgeries? 
Does he say this transcript from Trumbull's speech 
IS a forgery? ["He did n't deny one of them."] / 
ivould then like to know how it comes about that when 
each piece of a story is true the whole story turns out 
false. I take it these people have some sense; they 
pee plamly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish 
—a small species of fish that has no mode of defend- 
ing Itself when pursued except by throwing out a 
black fluid, which makes the water so dark the 
3nemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the 
Judge playing the cuttle-fish? 



66 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Now, I would ask very special attention to the 
consideration of Judge Douglas's speech at Jackson- 
ville ; and when you shall read his speech of to-day, 
I ask you to watch closely and see which of these 
pieces of testimony, every one of which he says is a 
forgery, he has shown to be such. Not one of them 
has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask the original 
question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, 
how is it possible that the whole is a falsehood ? 

In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] 
inserted a provision into the bill to prevent the con- 
stitution being submitted to the people, what was 
his answer? He comes here and reads from the 
Congressional Globe to show that on his motion that 
provision was struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull 
has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull 
says he [Douglas] put it in ; and it is no answer to the 
charge to say he afterwards took it out. Both are 
perhaps true. It was in regard to that thing pre- 
cisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. 
Trumbull shows you that by his introducing the bill 
it was his cub. It is no answer to that assertion to 
call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not 
specially say that Douglas struck it out. Suppose 
that were the case, does it answer Trumbull? I 
assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here 
to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by 
showing that you were in Mattoon yesterday. I say 
that you took your hat off your head, and you prove 
me a liar by putting it on your head. That is the 
whole force of Douglas's argument. 

Now, I want to come back to my original question. 



Abraham Lincoln 67 

Trumbull says that Judge Douglas had a bill with a 
provision in it for submitting a constitution to be 
made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge 
Douglas deny that fact ? Does he deny that the pro- 
vision which Trumbull reads was put in that bill? 
Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare 
to deny that? He does not, and I have the right to 
repeat the qviQslion,— Why Judge Douglas took it out ? 
Bigler has said there w^as a combination of certain 
senators, among whom he did not include Judge 
Douglas, by which it was agreed that the Kansas Bill 
should have a clause in it not to have the constitu- 
tion formed under it submitted to a vote of the peo- 
ple. He did not say that Douglas was among them, 
but we prove by another source that about the same 
time Douglas comes into the Senate ivtth that pro- 
vision stricken out of the bill. Although Bigler cannot 
say they were all working in concert, yet it looks very 
much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with 
a mutual understanding after the conference; and 
while we do not know that it was absolutely so, yet 
it looks so probable that we have a right to call upon 
the man who knows the true reason why it was done 
to tell what the true reason was. When he will not tell 
what the true reason was, he stands in the attitude 
of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his 
possession, and when called to account refuses to 
tell where he got them. Not only is this the evi- 
dence, but when he comes in with the bill having the 
provision stricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then 
but since, that these alterations and modifications 
in the bill had been made by yum, in consultation with 



68 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells vis the 
same to-day. He says there were certain modifica- 
tions made in the bill in committee that he did not 
vote for. I ask you to remember, while certain 
amendments were made which he disapproved of, 
but which a majority of the committee voted in, he 
has himself told us that in this particular the altera- 
tions and modifications were made by him, upon con- 
sultation with Toombs. We have his own word that 
these alterations were made by him, and not by the 
committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge 
Douglas is so chary about coming to the exact ques- 
tion? What is the reason he will not tell you any- 
thing about HOW it was made, by whom it was made, 
or that he remembers it being made at all? Why 
does he stand playing upon the meaning of words 
and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If 
he can explain all this, but leaves it unexplained, I 
have the right to infer that Judge Douglas under- 
stood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering 
that bill through, to make a constitution, and have 
Kansas come into the Union with that constitution, 
without its being stibmitted to a vote of the poeple. If 
he will explain his action on this question, by giving 
a better reason for the facts that happened than he 
has done, it will be satisfactory. But until he does 
that — until he gives a better or more plausible rea- 
son than he has offered against the evidence in the 
case — / suggest to him it will not avail him at all thai 
he swells himself up, takes on dignity, and calls people 
liars. Why, sir, there is not a v/ord in Trumbull's 
speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. 



Abraham Lincoln 69 

He has only arrayed the evidence and told you what 
follows as a matter of reasoning. There is not a 
statement in the whole speech that depends on 
Trumbull's word. If you have ever studied geome- 
try, you remember that by a course of reasoning 
Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are 
equal to two right angles. Euclid has shown you 
how to work it out. Now, if you undertake to dis- 
prove that proposition, and to show that it is erro- 
neous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid 
a liar? They tell me that my time is out, and there- 
fore I close. 



EXTRACT FROM MR. TRUMBULL's SPEECH MADE AT ALTON, 

REFERRED TO BY MR. LINCOLN IN HIS 

OPENING AT CHARLESTON. 

I I come now to another extract from a speech of Mr. 
Douglas, made at Beardstown, and reported in the 
Mtssouri Republican. This extract has reference to a 
.statement made by me at Chicago, wherein I charged 
that an agreement had been entered into by the very 
persons now claiming credit for opposing a constitution 
not submitted to the people, to have a constitution formed 
^nd put m force without giving the people of Kansas an 
opportunity to pass upon it. Without meeting this charge, 
which I substantiated by a reference to the record, my 
colleague is reported to have said : 

I " For when this charge was made once in a much milder 
■orm, m the Senate of the United States, I did brand it as 
I he m the presence of Mr. Trumbull, and Mr. Trumbull 
lat and heard it thus branded, without daring to say it was 
rue. I tell you he knew it to be false when he uttered it 



70 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

at Chicago ; and yet he says he is going to cram the lie 
down his throat until he should cry Enough. The miser- 
able, craven-hearted wretch! He would rather have both 
ears cut off than to use that language in my presence, 
where I could call him to account. I see the object is to 
draw me into a personal controversy, with the hope there- 
by of concealing from the public the enormity of the 
principles to which they are committed. I shall not 
allow much of my time in this canvass to be occupied by 
these personal assaults: I have none to make on Mr. 
Lincoln ; I have none to make on Mr. Trumbull ; I have 
none to make on any other political opponent. If I can- 
not stand on my own public record, on my own private 
and public character as history will record it, I will not 
attempt to rise by traducing the character of other men. 
I will not make a blackguard of myself by imitating the 
course they have pursued against me. I have no charges 
to make against them." 

This is a singular statement, taken altogether. After 
indulging in language which would disgrace a loafer in 
the filthiest purlieus of a fish market, he winds up by 
saying that he will not make a blackguard of himself, 
that he has no charges to make against me. So I suppose 
he considers that to say of another that he knew a thing 
to be false when he uttered it, that he was a " miserable, 
craven-hearted wretch," does not amount to a personal 
assault, and does not make a man a blackguard. A dis- 
criminating public will judge of that for themselves ; but 
as he says he has " no charges to make on Mr. Trumbull," 
I suppose politeness requires I should believe him. At 
the risk of again offending this mighty man of war, and 
losing something more than my ears, I shall have the 
audacity to again read the record upon him, and prove 
and pin upon him, so that he cannot escape it, the truth 



Abraham Lincoln 71 

of every word I uttered at Chicago. You, fellow-citizens, 
are the judges to determine whether I do this. My 
colleague says he is willing to stand on his public record. 
By that shall he be tried ; and if he had been able to dis- 
criminate between the exposure of a public act by the 
record, and a personal attack upon the individual, he 
would have discovered that there was nothing personal 
in my Chicago remarks, unless the condemnation of him- 
self by his own public record is personal ; and then you 
must judge who is most to blame for the torture his 
public record inflicts upon him— he for making, or I for 
reading it after it was made. As an individual, I care 
very little about Judge Douglas one way or the other. 
It is his public acts with which I have to do, and if they 
condemn, disgrace, and consign him to oblivion, he has 
only himself, not me, to blame. 

Now, the charge is that there was a plot entered into 
to have a constitution formed for Kansas, and put in 
force, without giving the people an opportunity to pass 
upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in the plot. That is 
;as susceptible of proof by the record as is the fact that 
the State of Minnesota was admitted into the Union at 
the last session of Congress. 

; On the 25th of June, 1856, a bill was pending in the 
jUnited States Senate to authorize the people of Kansas 
jto form a constitution and come into the Union. On 
that day Mr. Toombs offered an amendment which he 
intended to propose to the bill, which was ordered to be 
printed, and, with the original bill and other amendments, 
recommended to the Committee on Territories, of which 
Mr. Douglas was chairman. This amendment of Mr. 
(Toombs, printed by order of the Senate, and a copy of 
A^hich I have here present, provided for the appointment 
pf commissioners who were to take a census of Kansas, 



72 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

divide the Territory into election districts, and super- 
intend the election of delegates to form a constitution, 
and contains a clause in the i8th section which I will 
read to you, requiring the constitution which should be 
formed to be submitted to the people for adoption. It 
reads as follows : 

"That the following propositions be and the same are 
hereby offered to the said Convention of the people of 
Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or re- 
jection, which, if accepted by the Convention, and 
ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of 
the constitution, shall be obligatory on the United States, 
and upon the said State of Kansas," etc. 

It has been contended by some of the newspaper press 
that this section did not require the constitution which 
should be formed to be submitted to the people for ap- 
proval, and that it was only the land propositions which 
were to be submitted. You will observe the language 
is that the propositions are to be " ratified by the people 
at the election for the adoption of the constitution." 
Would it have been possible to ratify the land proposi- 
tions "at the election for the adoption of the constitu- 
tion," unless such an election was to be held? 

When one thing is required by a contract or law to be 
done, the doing of which is made dependent upon and 
cannot be performed without the doing of some other 
thing, is not that other thing just as much required by 
the contract or law as the first? It matters not in what 
part of the act, nor in what phraseology, the intention of 
the Legislature is expressed, so you can clearly ascertain 
what it is ; and whenever that intention is ascertained 
from an examination of the language used, such intention 
is part of and a requirement of the law. Can any candid, 
fair-minded man read the section I have quoted, and say 



Abraham Lincoln ^2> 

that the intention to have the constitution which should 
be formed submitted to the people for their adoption is 
not clearly expressed? In my judgment, there can 'be 
no controversy among honest men upon a proposition so 
plam as this. Mr. Douglas has never pretended to deny 
so far as I am aware, that the Toombs amendment as 
ongmally mtroduced, did require a submission of 'the 
constitution to the people. This amendment of Mr 
Toombs's was referred to the committee of which Mr 
Douglas was chairman, and reported back by him on the 
30th of June, with the words "and ratified by the people 
at the election for the adoption of the constitution " 
stncken out. I have here a copy of the bill as reported 
back by Mr. Douglas, to substantiate the statement I 
?make. Vanous other alterations were also made in the 
bill, to which I shall presently have occasion to call 
^attention. There was no other clause in the original 
Toombs bill requiring a submission of the constitution to 
the people than the one I have read, and there was no 
clause whatever, after that was struck out, in the bill as 
Reported back by Judge Douglas, requiring a submission 
1 will now introduce a witness whose testimony cannot 
be impeached, he acknowledging himself to have been 
3ne of the conspirators and privy to the fact about which 
pe testifies. 

j Senator Bigler, alluding to the Toombs bill, as it was 
called, and which, after sundry amendments, passed the 
.-senate, and to the propriety f submitting the constitu- 
tion which should be formed to a vote of the people 
ttiade the following statement in his place in the Senate' 
December 9th, 1857. I read from part i. Congressional 
?lobe of last session, paragraph 21 : 

" I was present when that subject was discussed by 
enators, before the bill was introduced, and the question 



74 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

was raised and discussed whether the constitution, when 
formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. It 
was held by the most intelligent on the subject that in 
view of all the difficulties surrounding that Territory, 
the danger of any experiment at that time of a popular 
vote, it would be better that there should be no such 
provision in the Toombs bill ; and it was my understand- 
ing, in all the intercourse I had, that that convention 
would make a constitution and send it here, without 
submitting it to the popular vote." 

In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st Decem- 
ber, 1857 (Congressional Globe, same volume, page 113), 
Senator Bigler said : 

" Nothing was farther from my mind than to allude to 
any social or confidential interview. The meeting was 
not of that character. Indeed, it was semi-official, and 
called to promote the public good. My recollection was 
clear that I left the conference under the impression 
that it had been deemed best to adopt measures to admit 
Kansas as a State through the agency of one popular 
election, and that for delegates to the Convention. This 
impression was the stronger, because I thought the spirit 
of the bill infringed upon the doctrine of non-interven- 
tion, to which I had great aversion ; but with the hope 
of accomplishing great good, and as no movement had 
been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived 
this objection, and concluded to support the measure. 
I have a few items of testimony, as to the correctness of 
these impressions, and with their submission I shall be 
content. I have before me the bill reported by the 
Senator from Illinois, on the 7th of March, 1856, pro- 
viding for the admission of Kansas as a State, the third 
section of which reads as follows : 

"'That the following propositions be, and the same 



Abraham Lincoln 75 

are hereby offered to the said Convention of the people 
of Kansas, when formed, for their free acceptance or 
rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and 
ratified by the people at the election for the adoption 
of the constitution, shall be obligatory upon the United 
States and upon the said State of Kansas.' 

" The bill read in place by the Senator from Georgia, 

on the 25th of June, and referred to the Committee on 

Territories, contained the same section, word for word. 

' Both these bills were under consideration at the con- 

. ference referred to ; but, sir, when the Senator from 

; Illinois reported the Toombs bill to the Senate, with 

amendments, the next morning, it did not contain that 

portion of the third section which indicated to the Con- 

I vention that the constitution should be approved by the 

I people. The words 'and ratified by the people at the 

election for the adoption of the constitution' had been 

stricken out." 

I I am not now seeking to prove that Douglas was in the 
plot to force a constitution upon Kansas without allowing 
the people to vote directly upon it. I shall attend to 
that branch of the subject by and by. My object now is 
to prove the existence of the plot, what the design was, and 
I ask if I have not already done so. Here are the facts : 
The introduction of a bill on the 7th of March, 1856, 
providing for the calling of a convention in Kansas to 
form a State constitution, and providing that the con- 
stitution should be submitted to the people for adoption ; 
an amendment to this bill, proposed by Mr. Toombs,' 
containing the same requirement; a reference of these 
^^arious bills to the Committee on Territories ; a consul- 
tation of senators to determine whether it was advisable 
:o have the constitution submitted for ratification; 
:he determination that it was not advisable; and a 



76 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

report of the bill back to the Senate next morning, with 
the clause providing for the submission stricken out. 
Could evidence be more complete to establish the first 
part of the charge I have made of a plot having been 
entered into by somebody, to have a constitution adopted 
without submitting it to the people? 

Now for the other part of the charge, that Judge 
Douglas was in this plot, whether knowingly or igno- 
rantly is not material to my purpose. The charge is that 
he was an instrument co-operating in the project to have 
a constitution formed and put into operation, without 
affording the people an opportunity to pass upon it. 
The first evidence to sustain the charge is the fact that 
he reported back the Toombs amendment with the 
clause providing for the submission stricken out, — this 
in connection with his speech in the Senate on the 9th 
of December, 1857 {Congressional Globe, part i, page 
14), wherein he stated: 

"That during the last Congress I [Mr. Douglas] re- 
ported a bill from the Committee on Territories, to 
authorize the people of Kansas to assemble and form a 
constitution for themselves. Subsequently the Senator 
from Georgia (Mr. Toombs) brought forward a substi- 
tute for my bill, which, after having been modified by 
him and myself in consultation, was passed by the 
Senate." 

This of itself ought to be sufficient to show that my 
colleague was an instrument in the plot to have a con- 
stitution put in force without submitting it to the people, 
and to forever close his mouth from attempting to deny. 
No man can reconcile his acts and former declarations 
with his present denial, and the only charitable conclu- 
sion would be that he was being used by others without 
knowing it. Whether he is entitled to the benefit of 



Abraham Lincoln ^^ 

even this excuse, you must judge on a candid hearing of 
the facts I shall present. When the charge was first 
made in the United States Senate, by Mr. Bigler, that 
my colleague had voted for an Enabling Act which 
put a government in operation without submitting the 
constitution to the people, my colleague {Congressional 
Globe, last session, part i, page 24) stated: 

" I will ask the Senator to show me an intimation from 
any one member of the Senate, in the whole debate on the 
Toombs bill, and in the Union from any quarter, that 
the constitution was not be to submitted to the people. 
I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it 
was so understood at the time. If the opponents of the 
bill had understood it was not, they would have made 
the point on it; and if they had made it, we should cer- 
tainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That 
is a discovery made since the President found out that it 
was not safe to take it for granted that that would be 
done which ought in fairness to have been done." 

I knew at the time this statement was made that I had 
urged the very objection to the Toombs bill two years 
before, that it did not provide for the submission of the 
constitution. You will find my remarks, made on the 
2nd of July, 1856, in the appendix to the Congressional 
Globe of that year, page 179, urging this very objection. 
Do you ask why I did not expose him at the time.? I 
will tell you : Mr. Douglas was then doing good service 
against the Lecompton iniquity. The Republicans were 
then engaged in a hand-to-hand fight with the National 
Democracy to prevent the bringing of Kansas into the 
Union as a slave State against the wishes of its inhab- 
itants, and of course I was unwilling to turn our guns 
from the common enemy to strike down an ally. Judge 
Douglas, however, on the same day, and in the same 



78 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

debate, probably recollecting, or being reminded of, the 
fact that I had objected to the Toombs bill when pend- 
ing, that it did not provide for the submission of the con- 
stitution to the people, made another statement, which 
is to be found in the same volume of the Congressional 
Globe, page 2 2 , in which he says : 

"That the bill was silent on the subject is true, and 
my attention was called to that about the time it was 
passed ; and I took the fair construction to be, that pow- 
ers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the 
constitution would be submitted to the people." 

Whether this statement is consistent with the state- 
ment just before made, that had the point been made it 
would have been yielded to, or that it was a new dis- 
covery, you will determine; for if the public records do 
not convict and condemn him, he may go uncondemned, 
so far as I am concerned. I make no use here of the 
testimony of Senator Bigler to show that Judge Douglas 
must have been privy to the consultation held at his 
house, when it was determined not to submit the con- 
stitution to the people, because Judge Douglas denies it, 
and I wish to use his own acts and declarations, which 
are abundantly sufficient for my purpose. 

I come to a piece of testimony which disposes of all 
these various pretences which have been set up for strik- 
ing out of the original Toombs proposition the clause re- 
quiring a submission of the constitution to the people, 
and shows that it was not done either by accident, by in- 
advertence, or because it was believed that, the bill being 
silent on the subject, the constitution would necessarily 
be submitted to the people for approval. What will you 
think, after listening to the facts already presented, to 
show that there was a design with those who concocted 
the Toombs bill, as amended, not to submit the constitu- 



Abraham Lincoln 79 

tion to the people, if I now bring before you the amended 
bill as Judge Douglas reported it back, and show the 
clause of the original bill requiring submission was not 
only struck out, but that other clauses were inserted in 
the bill, putting it absolutely out of the power of the 
Convention to submit the constitution to the people for 
approval, had they desired to do so? If I can pro- 
duce such evidence as that, will you not all agree 
that It clinches and establishes forever all I charged at 
Chicago, and more too ? 

I propose now to furnish that evidence. It will be 

remembered that Mr. Toombs's bill provided for holding 

an election for delegates to form a constitution under 

1 the supervision of commissioners to be appointed by the 

I President ; and in the bill as reported back by Judge 

I Douglas, these words, not to be found in the original bill 

are inserted at the close of the i ith section, viz. : 

"And until the complete execution of this Act, no 
other election shall be held in said Territory." 

This clause put it out of the power of the Convention 
to refer to the people for adoption; it absolutely pro- 
hibited the holding of any other election than that for the 
election of delegates, till that act was completely ex- 
ecuted, which would not have been until Kansas was 
admitted as a State, or at all events till her constitution 
was fully prepared and ready for submission to Congress 
for admission. Other amendments reported by Judge 
Douglas to the original Toombs bill clearly show that the 
intention was to enable Kansas to become a State with- 
out any further action than simply a resolution of ad- 
mission. The amendment reported by Mr. Douglas, that 
"until the next Congressional apportionment, the' said 
State shall have one representative," clearly shows this, 
no such provision being contained in the original Toombs 



8o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

bill. For what other earthly purpose could the clause 
to prevent any other election in Kansas, except that of 
delegates, till it was admitted as a State, have been in- 
serted, except to prevent a submission of the constitu- 
tion, when formed, to the people? 

The Toombs bill did not pass in the exact shape in 
which Judge Douglas reported it. Several amendments 
were made to it in the Senate. I am now dealing with 
the action of Judge Douglas as connected with that bill, 
and speak of the bill as he recommended it. The facts I 
have stated in regard to this matter appear upon the 
records, which I have h^Ee present to show to any man 
who wishes to look at them. They establish beyond the 
power of controversy all the charges I have made, and 
show that Judge Douglas was made use of as an instru- 
ment by others, or else knowingly was a party to the 
scheme, to have a government put in force over the people 
of Kansas without giving them an opportunity to pass 
upon it. That others high in position in the so-called 
Democratic party were parties to such a scheme is con- 
fessed by Governor Bigler ; and the only reason why the 
scheme was not carried, and Kansas long ago forced into 
the Union as a slave State, is the fact, that the Re- 
publicans w^ere sufficiently strong in the House of Repre- 
sentatives to defeat the measure. 



EXTRACT FROM MR. DOUGLAS's SPEECH MADE AT JACKSON- 
VILLE, AND REFERRED TO BY MR. LINCOLN 
IN HIS OPENING AT CHARLESTON. 

I have been reminded by a friend behind me that there 
is another topic upon which there has been a desire ex- 
pressed that I should speak. I am told that Mr. Lyman 
Trumbull, who has the good fortune to hold a seat in the 



Abraham Lincoln 8i 

United States Senate, in violation of the bargain between 
hini and Lincoln, was here the other day and occupied 
his time in making certain charges against me, involving, 
if they be true, moral turpitude. I am also informed 
that the charges he made here were substantially the 
same as those made by him in the city of Chicago, which 
were printed in the newspapers of that city. I now pro- 
pose to answer those charges and to annihilate every 
pretext that an honest man has ever had for repeating 
them. 

In order that I may meet these charges fairly, I will 
read them, as made by Mr. Trumbull, in his Chicago 
speech, in his own language. He says: 

" Now, fellow-citizens, I make the distinct charge that 
there was a preconcerted arrangement and plot entered 
into by the very men who now claim credit for opposing 
a constitution not submitted to the people, to have a con- 
stitution formed and put in force without giving the 
people an opportunity to pass upon it. This, my friends, 
is a serious charge, but I charge it to-night that the very 
men who traverse the country under banners proclaiming 
popular sovereignty, by design concocted a bill on pur- 
pose to force a constitution upon that people." 

Again, speaking to some one in the crowd, he says: 

"And you want to satisfy yourself that he was in the 
plot to force a constitution upon that people? I will 
satisfy you. I will cram the truth down any honest 
man's throat until he cannot deny it, and to the man who 
does deny it I will cram the lie down his throat till he 
shall cry, 'Enough!' It is preposterous; it is the most 
damnable effrontery that man ever put on to conceal a 
scheme to defraud and cheat the people out of their 
rights, and then claim credit for it." 

That is polite and decent language for a Senator of the 



82 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

United States. Remember that that language was used 
without any provocation whatever from me. I had not 
alluded to him in any manner in any speech that I had 
made, hence without provocation. As soon as he sets 
his foot within the State, he makes the direct charge that 
I was a party to a plot to force a constitution upon the 
people of Kansas against their will, and, knowing that it 
would be denied, he talks about cramming the lie down 
the throat of any man who shall deny it, until he cries, 
"Enough!" 

Why did he take it for granted that it w^ould be denied, 
unless he knew it to be false? Why did he deem it 
necessary to make a threat in advance that he would 
"cram the lie" down the throat of any man that should 
deny it? I have no doubt that the entire Abolition 
party consider it very polite for Mr. Trumbull to go 
round uttering calumnies of that kind, bullying, and 
talking of cramming lies down men's throats; but if I 
deny any of his lies by calling him a liar, they are shocked 
at the indecency of the language ; hence, to-day, instead 
of calling him a liar, I intend to prove that he is one, 

I wish, in the first place, to refer to the evidence ad- 
duced by Trumbull, at Chicago, to sustain his charge. 
He there declared that Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, intro- 
duced a bill into Congress authorizing the people of 
Kansas to form a constitution and come into the Union, 
that when introduced it contained a clause requiring the 
constitution to be submitted to the people, and that I 
struck out the words of that clause. 

Suppose it were true that there was such a clause in 
the bill, and that I struck it out, is that proof of a plot 
to force a constitution upon a people against their will? 
Bear in mind that from the days of George Washington 
to the Administration of Franklin Pierce, there had 



Abraham Lincoln 83 

never been passed by Congress a bill requiring the sub- 
mission of a constitution to the people. If Trumbull's 
^ charge, that I struck out that clause, were true, it would 
\ only prove that I had reported the bill in the exact shape 
of every bill of like character that passed under Washing- 
ton. Jefterson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, or any other 
President, to the time of the then present Administration 
1 ask you, would that be evidence of a design to force a 
constitution on a people against their will? If it were 
so, it would be evidence against Washington, Jefferson 
Madison, Jackson, Van Buren, and every other President' 
I But, upon examination, it turns out that the Toombs 
bill never did contain a clause requiring the constitution 
! to be submitted. Hence no such clause was ever stricken 
out, by me or anybody else. It is true, however that 
the Toombs bill and its authors all took it for granted 
that the constitution would be submitted. There had 
never been, in the history of this government, any at- 
i tempt made to force a constitution upon an unwilling 
people, and nobody dreamed that any such attempt 
would be made, or deemed it necessary to provide for 
•such a contingency. If such a clause was necessary in 
Mr. Trumbull's opinion, why did he not offer an amend- 
ment to that effect? 

I In order to give more pertinency to that question, I 
will read an extract from Trumbull's speech in the 
Senate, on the Toombs bill, made on the 2nd of lulv 
1856. He said: -^ ^' 

1 "We are asked to amend this bill and make it perfect, 
and a liberal spirit seems to be manifested on the part 
Pf some senators to have a fair bill. It is difficult, I 
idmit, to frame a bill that will give satisfaction to all, 
■3ut to approach it, or come near it, I think two things 
fnust be done." 



84 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

The first, then, he goes on to say, was the appHcation 
of the Wilmot Proviso to the Territories, and the second 
the repeal of all the laws passed by the Territorial Legis- 
lature. He did not then say that it was necessary to put 
in a clause requiring the submission of the constitution. 
Why, if he thought such a provision necessary, did he not 
introduce it? He says in his speech that he was invited 
to offer amendments. Why did he not do so ? He cannot 
pretetid that he had no chance to do this, for he did 
offer some amendments, but none requiring submission. 

I now proceed to show that Mr. Trumbull knew at the 
time that the bill was silent as to the subject of sub- 
mission, and also that he, and everybody else, took it 
for granted that the constitution would be submitted. 
Now for the evidence. In his second speech he says: 
" The bill in many of its features meets my approbation." 
So he did not think it so very bad. 

Further on he says : 

" In regard to the measure introduced by the Senator 
from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and recommended by the 
committee, I regard it, in many respects, as a most ex- 
cellent bill; but we must look at it in the light of sur- 
rounding circumstances. In the condition of things now 
existing in the country, I do not consider it as a safe 
measure, nor one which will give peace ; and I will give 
my reasons. First, it affords no immediate relief. It 
provides for taking a census of the voters in the Territory 
for an election in November, and the assembhng of a 
convention in December, to form, if it thinks proper, a 
constitution for Kansas, preparator}^ to its admission 
into the Union as a State. It is not until December that 
the Convention is to meet. It would take some time to 
form a constitution. I suppose that constitution would 
have to he ratified by the people before it becomes valid." 



Abraham Lincoln 85 

I He there expressly declared that he supposed, under 
the bill, the constitution would have to be submitted to 
the people before it became vaHd. He went on to say: 
_ "No provision is made in this bill for such a ratifica- 
tion. This is objectionable to my mind. I do not think 
the people should be bound by a constitution without 
passing upon it directly, themselves." 
I Why did he not offer an amendment providing for 
such a submission, if he thought it necessary.? Not- 
withstanding the absence of such a clause he took it for 
granted that the constitution would have to be ratified 
by the people, under the bill. 

In another part of the same speech, he says : 
"There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have dis- 
covered, about submitting the constitution which is to 
be framed to the people, for their sanction or rejection. 
Perhaps the Convention would have the right to submit 
lit, if it should think proper; but it is certainly not com- 
pelled to do so, according to the provisions of the bill 
ff it IS to be submitted to the people, it will take time, 
ind It will not be until some time next year that this 
lew constitution, affirmed and ratified by the people 
vould be submitted here to Congress for its acceptance'; 
md what is to be the condition of that people in the 
neantime?" 

You see that his argument then was that the Toombs 
nil would not get Kansas into the Union quick enough, 
•nd was objectionable on that account. He had no fears 
bout this submission, or why did he not introduce an 
mendment to meet the case ? 

A voice: Why didn't you? You were chairman of 
he committee. 

Mr. Douglas : I will answer that question for you. 
^ In the first place, no provision had ever before been put 



86 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

in any similar act passed by Congress. I did not sup- 
pose that there was an honest man who would pretend 
that the omission of such a clause furnished evidence of 
a conspiracy or attempt to impose on the people. It 
could not be expected that such of us as did not think 
that omission was evidence of such a scheme would offer 
such an amendment; but if Trumbull then believed 
what he now says, why did he not offer the amendment, 
and try to prevent it, when he was, as he says, invited to 
do so? 

In this connection I will tell you what the main point 
of discussion was: There was a bill pending to admit 
Kansas whenever she should have a population of 93,420, 
that being the ratio required for a member of Congress. 
Under that bill Kansas could not have become a State 
for some years, because she could not have had the 
requisite population. Mr. Toombs took it into his head 
to bring in a bill to admit Kansas then, with only twenty- 
five or thirty thousand people, and the question was 
whether we would allow Kansas to come in under thi= 
bill, or keep her out under mine until she had 93,42^ 
people. The committee considered that question, and 
overruled me, by deciding in favor of the immediate ad- 
mission of Kansas, and I reported accordingly. I hold 
in my hand a copy of the report which I made at that 
time. I will read from it : 

"The point upon which your committee have enter- 
tained the most serious and grave doubts in regard to the 
propriety of indorsing the proposition relates to the fact 
that, in the absence of any census of the inhabitants, 
there is reason to apprehend that the Territory does not 
contain sufficient population to entitle them to demand 
admission under the treaty with France, if we take the ratio 
of representation for a member of Congress as the rule." 



Abraham Lincoln 87 

Thus you see that in the written report accompanying 
the b,ll, I sa>d that the great difficulty with the com 
mittee was the question of population. In the same 
report I happened to refer to the question of submission 
Now, listen to what I said about that ■ 

i .Ht r '''\°P'"j°" °f yo"-- committee, whenever a con- 
^itut,on shall be formed in any Territory, preparatory 
I to Its admission into the Union as a State, justice, the 
gemus of our institutions, the whole theory of our re- 
publican system, imperatively demand that the voice of 
i the people shall be fairiy expressed, and their wUI em- 
bodied in that fundamental law, without fraud, or vio- 
ence, or intimidation, or any other improper or unlawful 
mfluence and subject to no other restrictions than those 
; imposed by the Constitution of the United States " 
j I read this from the report I made at the time, on the 
Toombs bill. I will read yet another passage from the 
(same report ; after setting out the features of the Toombs 
bill, I contrast it with the proposition of Senator Seward 
jSaying: ' 

I "The revised proposition of the Senator from Georgia 
refers all matters in dispute to the decision of the present 
population, with guarantees of fairness and safeguards 
agamst frauds and violence to which no reasonable man 
\Ln ^T f vT.^' °^ exception; while the Senator 
rom New York, if his proposition is designed to recognize 
md impart vitality to the Topeka Constitution, proposes 
p disfranchise, not only all the emigrants who have 
imved in the Territory this year, but all the law-abiding 
nen who refused to join in the act of open rebellion 
.gainst the constituted authorities of the Territory last 
fear, by making the unauthorized and unlawful action 
t a political party the fundamental law of the whole 
,'©opie. 



88 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Then, again, I repeat that under that bill the question 
is to be referred to the present population to decide for 
or against coming into the Union under the constitution 
they may adopt. 

Mr. Trumbull, when at Chicago, rested his charge 
upon the allegation that the clause requiring submission 
was originally in the bill, and was stricken out by me. 
When that falsehood was exposed by a publication ol 
the record, he went to Alton and made another speech, 
repeating the charge and referring to other and different 
evidence to sustain it. He saw that he was caught in his 
first falsehood, so he changed the issue, and instead of 
resting upon the allegation of striking out, he made it 
rest upon the declaration that I had introduced a clause 
into the bill prohibiting the people from voting upon the 
constitution. I am told that he made the same charge 
here that he made at Alton, that I had actually intro- 
duced and incorporated into the bill a clause which pro- 
hibited the people from voting upon their constitution. 
I hold his Alton speech in my hand, and will read the 
amendment which he alleges that I offered. It is in 
these words : 

" And until the complete execution of this Act, no other 
election shall be held in said Territory." 

Trumbull says the object of that amendment was to 
l)re\'cnt the Convention from submitting the constitu- 
tion to a vote of the people. I will read what he said at 
Alton on that subject : 

" This clause put it out of the power of the Convention, 
had it been so disposed, to submit the constitution to the 
people for adoption; for it absolutely prohibited the 
holding of any other election than that for the election of 
delegates, till that Act was completely executed, which 
would not have been till Kansas was admitted as a State, 



Abraham Lincoln 89 

or, at all events, till her constitution was fully prepared 
and ready for submission to Congress for admission." 

Now, do you suppose that Mr. Trumbull supposed 
that that clause prohibited the Convention from sub- 
mitting the constitution to the people, when, in his 
speech in the Senate, he declared that the Convention 
had a right to submit it? In his Alton speech, as will be 
seen by the extract which I have read, he declared the 
clause put it out of the power of the Convention to sub- 
mit the constitution, and in his speech in the Senate he 
said: 

" There is nothing said in this bill, so far as I have dis- 
covered, about submitting the constitution which is to 
be formed to the people, for their sanction or rejection. 
Perhaps the Convention would have the right to sub- 
mit it, if it should think proper, but it is certainly not 
:ompelled to do so according to the provisions of the 
Dill." 

j Thus you see that, in Congress, he declared the bill to 
Se silent on the subject, and a few days since, at Alton, 
le made a speech and said that there was a provision in 
he bill prohibiting submission. 

I have two answers to make to that. In the first 
)lace, the amendment which he quotes as depriving the 
)eople of an opportunity to vote upon the constitution 
uas stricken out on my motion,— ahsohitely stricken out, 
.nd not voted on at all ! In the second place, in lieu of 
t, a provision was voted in, authorizing the Convention 
o order an election whenever it pleased. I will read, 
^fter Trumbull had made his speech in the Senate, de- 
larmg that the constitution would probably be sub- 
mitted to the people, although the bill was silent upon 
hat subject, I made a few remarks, and offered two 
mendments, which you may find in the Appendix to 



90 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the Congressional Globe, volume thirty -three, first session 
of the Thirty -fourth Congress, page 795. I quote: 

"Mr. Douglas: I have an amendment to offer from 
the Committee on Territories. On page 8, section 11, 
strike out the words 'until the complete execution of this 
act no other election shall be held in said Territory,' and 
insert the amendment which I hold in my hand." 

The amendment was as follows : 

"That all persons who shall possess the other qualifi- 
cations prescribed for voters under this Act, and who 
shall have been bona fide inhabitants of said Territory 
since its organization, and who shall have absented them- 
selves therefrom in consequence of the disturbances 
therein, and who shall return before the first day of 
October next, and become bona fide inhabitants of the 
Territory, with the intent of making it their permanent 
home, and shall present satisfactory evidence of these 
facts to the Board of Commissioners, shall be entitled to 
vote at said election, and shall have their names placed 
on said corrected list of voters for that purpose." 

That amendment was adopted unanimously. After 
its adoption, the record shows the following: 

"Mr. Douglas: I have another amendment to offer 
from the Committee, to follow the one which has been 
adopted. The bill reads now, 'And until the complete 
execution of this Act, no other election shall be held in 
said Territory.' It has been suggested that it should be 
modified in this way, 'And to avoid all conflict in the 
complete execution of this Act, all other elections in said 
Territory are hereby postponed until such time as said 
Convention shall appoint,' so that they can appoint the 
day in the event that there should be a failure to come 
into the Union." 

This amendment was also agreed to, without dissent. 



Abraham Lincoln gi 

Thus you see that the amendment quoted by Trumbull 
at Alton as evidence against me, instead of being put 
into the bill by me, was stricken out on my motion, and 
never became a part thereof at all. You also see that 
the substituted clause expressly authorized the Conven- 
tion to appoint such day of election as it should deem 
proper. 

Mr. Trumbull when he made that speech knew these 
facts. He forged his evidence from beginning to end, 
and by falsifying the record he endeavors to bolster up 
his false charge. I ask you what you think of Trumbull 
thus going around the country, falsifying and garbling 
the public records. I ask you whether you will sustain 
a man who will descend to the infamy of such conduct. 

Mr. Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not 
hereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made 
by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln having indorsed the 
character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him 
[Lincoln] responsible for the slanders. 



FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, 

October 7, 1858. 

MR. Douglas's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: Four years ago I ap- 
peared before the people of Knox County for the 
purpose of defending my pohtical action upon the 
Compromise measures of 1850 and the passage of 
the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Those of you before me 
who were present then will remember that I vindi- 
cated myself for supporting those two measures by 
the fact that they rested upon the great funda- 
mental principle that the people of each State and 
each Territory of this Union have the right, and 
ought to be permitted to exercise the right, of 
regulating their own domestic concerns in their own 
way, subject to no other limitation or restriction 
than that which the Constitution of the United 
States imposes upon them. I then called upon the 
people of Illinois to decide whether that principle of 
self-government was right or wrong. If it was and 
is right, then the Compromise measures of 1850 were 
right, and consequently, the Kansas and Nebraska 
Bill, based upon the same principle, must neces- 
sarily have been right. 

The Kansas and Nebraska Bill declared, in so 

many words, that it was the true intent and meaning 

of the act not to legislate slavery into any State or 

92 



Stephen A. Douglas 93 

Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave 
the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate 
their domestic institutions in their own way, subject 
only to the Constitution of the United States. For 
the last four years I have devoted all my energies, 
in private and public, to commend that principle to 
the American people. Whatever else may be said in 
condemnation or support of my political course I 
apprehend that no honest man will doubt the fidelity 
with which, under all circumstances, I have stood 
by it. 

During the last year a question arose in the Con- 
gress of the United States whether or not that 
principle would be violated by the admission of 
Kansas into the Union under the Lecompton Con- 
stitution. In my opinion, the attempt to force 
Kansas in under that constitution was a gross viola- 
tion of the principle enunciated in the Compromise 
measures of 1850, and Kansas and Nebraska Bill of 
1854, and therefore I led off in the fight against 
the Lecompton Constitution, and conducted it 
until the effort to carry that constitution through 
Congress was abandoned. And I can appeal to all 
men, friends and foes, Democrats and Republicans, 
Northern men and Southern men, that during the 
whole of that fight I carried the banner of popular 
sovereignty aloft, and never allowed it to trail in the 
dust, or lowered my flag until victory perched upon 
our arms. When the Lecompton Constitution was 
defeated, the question arose in the minds of those 
who had advocated it what they should next resort 
to in order to carry out their views. They devised a 



94 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

measure known as the English bill, and granted a 
general amnesty and political pardon to all men who 
had fought against the Lecompton Constitution, 
provided they would support that bill. I for one 
did not choose to accept the pardon, or to avail 
myself of the amnesty granted on that condition. 
The fact that the supporters of Lecompton were will- 
ing to forgive all differences of opinion at that time 
in the event those who opposed it favored the English 
bill, was an admission they did not think that op- 
position to Lecompton impaired a man's standing in 
the Democratic party. Now, the question arises, 
what was that English bill which certain men are now 
attempting to make a test of political orthodoxy in 
this country? It provided, in substance, that the 
Lecompton Constitution should be sent back to the 
people of Kansas for their adoption or rejection, at 
an election which was held in August last, and in 
case they refused admission under it, that Kansas 
should be kept out of the Union until she had 
93,420 inhabitants. I was in favor of sending the 
constitution back in order to enable the people to 
say whether or not it was their act and deed, and 
embodied their will ; but the other proposition, that 
if they refused to come into the Union under it they 
should be kept out until they had double or treble 
the population they then had, I never would sanction 
by my vote. The reason why I could not sanction 
it is to be found in the fact that by the English bill, 
if the people of Kansas had only agreed to become a 
slaveholding State under the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion, they could have done so with 35,000 people, 



Stephen A. Douglas 95 

but if they insisted on being a free State, as they had 
a right to do, then they were to be punished by 
being kept out of the Union until they had nearly 
three times that population. I then said in my 
place in the Senate, as I now say to you, that when- 
ever Kansas has population enough for a slave State 
she has population enough for a free State. I have 
never yet given a vote, and I never intend to record 
one, making an odious and unjust distinction be- 
tween the different States of this Union. I hold it 
to be a fundamental principle in our republican 
form of government that all the States of this Union, 
old and new, free and slave, stand on an exact 
equality. Equality among the different States is a 
cardinal principle on which all our institutions rest. 
Wherever, therefore, you make a discrimination, 
saving to a slave State that it shall be admitted 
with 35,000 inhabitants, and a free State that it 
shall not be admitted until it has 93,000 or 100,000 
mhabitants, you are throwing the whole weight of 
the Federal Government into the scale in favor of 
one class of States against the other. Nor would I, 
on the other hand, any sooner sanction the doctrine 
that a free State could be admitted into the Union 
with 35,000 people, while a slave State was kept 
out until it had 93,000. I have always declared in 
the Senate my willingness, and I am willing now to 
adopt the rule, that no Territory shall ever become a 
State until it has the requisite population for a 
member of Congress, according to the then existing 
ratio. But while I have always been, and am now, 
willing to adopt that general rule, I was not willing 



96 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

and would not consent to make an exception of 
Kansas, as a punishment for her obstinacy in de- 
manding the right to do as she pleased in the forma- 
tion of her constitution. It is proper that I should 
remark here, that my opposition to the Lecompton 
Constitution did not rest upon the peculiar position 
taken by Kansas on the subject of slavery. I held 
then, and hold now, that if the people of Kansas 
want a slave State, it is their right to make one, and 
be received into the Union tinder it; if, on the con- 
trary, they want a free State, it is their right to have 
it, and no man should ever oppose their admission 
because they ask it under the one or the other. I 
hold to that great principle of self-gv^vernment which 
asserts the right of every people to decide for them- 
selves the nature and character of the domestic in- 
stitutions and fundamental law under which the}^ 
are to live. 

The effort has been and is now being made in this 
State by certain postmasters and other Federal office- 
holders to make a test of faith on the support of the 
English bill. These men are now making speeches 
all over the State against me and in favor of Lincoln, 
either directly or indirectly, because I would not 
sanction a discrimination between slave and free 
States by voting for the English bill. But while 
that bill is made a test in Illinois for the purpose of 
breaking up the Democratic organization in this 
State, how is it in the other States? Go to Indiana, 
and there you find English himself, the author of the 
English bill, who is a candidate for re-election to 
Congress, has been forced by public opinion to 



Stephen A. Douglas 97 

abandon his own darling project, and to give a 
promise that he will vote for the admission of 
Kansas at once, whenever she forms a constitution 
in pursuance of law and ratifies it by a majority 
vote of her people. Not only is this the case with 
English himself, but I am informed that every 
Democratic candidate for Congress in Indiana takes 
the same ground. Pass to Ohio, and there you find 
that Groesbeck, and Pendleton, and Cox, and all the 
other anti-Lecompton men who stood shoulder to 
shoulder with me against the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion, but voted for the English bill, now repudiate it 
and take the same ground that I do on that question. 
So it is with the Joneses and others of Pennsylvania, 
and so it is with every other Lecompton Democrat 
in the free States. They now abandon even the 
English bill, and come back to the true platform 
which I proclaimed at the time in the Senate, and 
upon which the Democracy of Illinois now stand. 
And yet, notwithstanding the fact that every Le- 
compton and anti-Lecompton Democrat in the free 
States has abandoned the English bill, you are told 
that it is to be made a test upon me, while the power 
and patronage of the Government are all exerted to 
elect men to Congress in the other States who occupy 
the same position with reference to it that I do. It 
seems that my political offence consists in the fact 
that I first did not vote for the English bill, and 
thus pledge myself to keep Kansas out of the Union 
until she has a population of 93,420, and then re- 
turn home, violate that pledge, repudiate the bill, 
and take the opposite ground. If I had done this, 



98 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

perhaps the Administration would now be advocating 
my re-election, as it is that of the others who have 
pursued this course. I did not choose to give that 
pledge, for the reason that I did not intend to carry 
out that principle. I never will consent, for the 
sake of conciliating the frowns of power, to pledge 
myself to do that which I do not intend to perform. 
I now submit the question to you, as my constitu- 
ency, whether I was not right, first, in resisting 
the adoption of the Lecompton Constitution, and, 
secondly, in resisting the Enghsh bill. I repeat that 
I opposed the Lecompton Constitution because it 
was not the act and deed of the people of Kansas, 
and did not embody their will. I denied the right 
of any power on earth, under our system of govern- 
ment, to force a constitution on an unwilling people. 
There was a time when some men could pretend to 
believe that the Lecompton Constitution embodied 
the will of the people of Kansas; but that time has 
passed. The question was referred to the people of 
Kansas under the English bill last August, and then, 
at a fair election, they rejected the Lecompton Coti- 
stitution by a vote of from eight tc ten against it to 
one in its favor. Since it has been voted down by 
so overwhelming a majority, no man can pretend 
that it was the act and deed of that people. I sub- 
mit the question to you whether or not, if it had not 
been for me, that constitution would have been 
crammed down the throats of the people of Kansas 
against their consent. While at least ninety-nine 
out of every hundred people here present agree that I 
was right in defeating that project, yet my enemies 



Stephen A. Douglas 99 

use the fact that I did defeat it, by doing right, to 
break me down and put another man in the United 
States Senate in my place. The very men who 
acknowledge that I was right in defeating Le- 
compton now form an alliance with Federal office- 
holders, professed Lecompton men, to defeat me, 
because I did right. My political opponent, Mr! 
Lincoln, has no hope on earth, and has never 
dreamed that he had a chance of success, were it not 
for the aid that he is receiving from Federal office- 
holders, who are using their influence and the patron- 
age of the government against me in revenge for my 
having defeated the Lecompton Constitution. What 
do you Republicans think of a political organization 
that will try to make an unholy and unnatural com- 
bination with its professed foes to beat a man merely 
because he has done right? You know such is the 
fact with regard to your own party. You know that 
the axe of decapitation is suspended over every man 
in office in Illinois, and the terror of proscription is 
threatened every Democrat by the present Adminis- 
tration, unless he supports the Republican ticket in 
preference to my Democratic associates and myself. 
I could find an instance in the postmaster of the city 
of Galesburgh, and in every other postmaster in this 
vicinity, all of whom have been stricken down 
simply because they discharged the duties of their 
offices honestly, and supported the regular Demo- 
cratic ticket in this State in the right. The Repub- 
lican party is availing itself of unworthy means in the 
present contest to carry the election, because its 
leaders know that if they let this chance slip they 



loo Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

will never have another, and their hopes of making 
this a Republican State will be blasted forever. 

Now, let me ask you whether the country has any 
interest in sustaining this organization, known as 
the Republican party. That party is unlike all other 
political organizations in this coimtry. All other 
parties have been national in their character, — have 
avowed their principles alike in the slave and free 
States, in Kentucky as well as Illinois, in Louisiana 
as well as in Massachusetts. Such was the case with 
the old Whig party, and such was and is the case 
with the Democratic party, Whigs and Democrats 
could proclaim their principles boldly and fearlessly 
in the North and in the South, in the East and in 
the West, wherever the Constitution ruled, and the 
American flag waved over American soil. 

But now you have a sectional organization, a 
party which appeals to the Northern section of the 
Union against the Southern, a party which appeals 
to Northern passion. Northern pride. Northern am- 
bition, and Northern prejudices, against Southern 
people, the Southern States, and Southern institu- 
tions. The leaders of that party hope that they will 
be able to unite the Northern States in one great 
sectional party; and inasmuch as the North is the 
strongest section, that they will thus be enabled to 
outvote, conquer, govern and control the South. 
Hence you find that they now make speeches ad- 
vocating principles and measures which cannot be 
defended in any slaveholding State of this Union. Is 
there a Republican residing in Galesburgh who can 
travel into Kentucky and carry his principles with 



Stephen A. Douglas loi 

him across the Ohio? What Republican from 
Massachusetts can visit the Old Dominion without 
leaving his principles behind him when he crosses 
Mason and Dixon's line? Permit me to say to you 
in perfect good-humor, but in all sincerity, that no 
poHtical creed is sound which cannot be proclaimed 
fearlessly in every State of this Union where the 
Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. 
Not only is this Republican party unable to pro- 
claim its principles alike in the North and South, in 
the free States and in the slave States, but it cankot 
even proclaim them in the same forms and give them 
the same strength and meaning in all parts of the 
same State. My friend Lincoln finds it extremely 
difficult to manage a debate in the centre part of the 
State, where there is a mixture of men from the 
North and the South. In the extreme northern part 
of Illinois he can proclaim as bold and radical Aboli- 
tionism as ever Giddings, Lovejoy, or Garrison 
enunciated; but when he gets down a little farther 
south he claims that he is an old-line Whig, a dis- 
ciple of Henry Clay, and declares that he still 
adheres to the old-line Whig creed, and has nothing 
whatever to do with Abolitionism, or negro equality, 
or negro citizenship. I once before hinted this of 
Mr. Lincoln in a public speech, and at Charleston he 
defied me to show that there was any difference 
between his speeches in the North and in the South, 
and that they were not in strict harmony. I will 
now call your attention to two of them, and you can 
then say whether you would be apt to believe that 
the same man ever uttered both. In a speech in 



I02 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

reply to me at Chicago in July last, Mr. Lincoln, in 
speaking of the equality of the negro with the white 
man, used the following language: 

" I should like to know, if, taking this old Declaration 
of Independence, which declares that all men are equal 
upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will 
it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, wh>' 
may not another man say it does not mean another man ' 
If the Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute 
book in which we find it, and tear it out. Who is so 
bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out." 

You find that Mr. Lincoln there proposed that if 
the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, 
declaring all men to be born equal, did not include 
the negro and put him on an equality with the white 
man, that we should take the statute book and tear 
it out. He there took the ground that the negro 
race is included in the Declaration of Independence 
as the equal of the white race, and that there could 
be no such thing as a distinction in the races, making 
one superior and the other inferior. I read now 
from the same speech: 

"My friends [he says], I have detained you about as 
long as I desire to do, and I have only to say, let us dis- 
card all this quibbling about this man and the other man, 
this race and that race and the other race being inferior, 
and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, 
discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us dis- 
card all these things, and unite as one people throughout 
this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring 
that all men are created equal." 

["That's right," etc.] 



Stephen A. Douglas 103 

Yes, I have no doubt that you think it is right; 
but the Lincoln men down in Coles, Tazewell, and 
Sangamon counties do not think it is right. In the 
conclusion of the same speech, talking to the Chicago 
Abohtionists, he said : " I leave you, hoping that the 
lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there 
shall no longer be a doubt that all men are created 
free and equal." ["Good, good."] Well, you say 
" Good " to that, and you are going to vote for Lin- 
coln because he holds that doctrine. I will not blame 
you for supporting him on that ground, but I will 
show you, in immediate contrast with that doctrine, 
what Mr. Lincoln said down in Egypt in order to 
get votes in that locality, where they do not hold to 
such a doctrine. In a joint discussion between Mr. 
Lincoln and myself, at Charleston, I think, on the 
1 8th of last month, Mr. Lincoln, referring to this 
subject, used the following language : 

" I will say then, that I am not, nor never have been, 
in favor of bringing about in any way the social and 
political equality of the white and black races ; that I 
am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters 
of the free negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold 
office, or having them to marry with white people. I 
will say, in addition, that there is a physical difference 
between the white and black races which, I suppose, will 
forever forbid the two races living together upon terms 
of social and political equality; and inasmuch as they 
cannot so live, that while they do remain together there 
must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as 
much as any other man am in favor of the superior 
position being assigned to the white man." 



I04 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

["Good for Lincoln."] 

Fellow-citizens, here you find men hurrahing for 
Lincoln, and saying that he did right, when in one 
part of the State he stood up for negro equality, and 
in another part, for political effect, discarded the 
doctrine, and declared that there always must be a 
superior and inferior race. Abolitionists up North 
are expected and required to vote for Lincoln because 
he goes for the equality of the races, holding that by 
the Declaration of Lidependence the white man and 
the negro were created equal, and endowed by the 
divine law with that equality, and down South he 
tells the old Whigs, the Kentuckians, Virginians, 
and Tennesseeans, that there is a physical difference 
in the races, making one superior and the other 
inferior, and that he is in favor of maintaining the 
superiority of the white race over the negro. Now, 
how can you reconcile those two positions of Mr. 
Lincoln? He is to be voted for in the South as a 
pro-slavery man, and he is to be voted for in the 
North as an Abolitionist. Up here he thinks it is all 
nonsense to talk about a difference between the races, 
and says that we must ' ' discard all quibbling about 
this race and that race and the other race being 
inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an 
inferior position." Down South he makes this 
"quibble" about this race and that race and the 
other race being inferior as the creed of his party, 
and declares that the negro can never be elevated to 
the position of the white man. You find that his 
political meetings are called by different names in 
different counties in the State. Here they are called 



Stephen A. Douglas 105 

Republican meetings; but in old Tazewell, where 
Lincoln made a speech last Tuesday, he did not 
address a Republican meeting, but ' ' a grand rally of 
the Lincoln men.'' There are very few Republicans 
there, because Tazewell County is filled with old 
Virginians and Kentuckians, all of whom are Whigs 
or Democrats; and if Mr. Lincoln had called an 
Abolition or Republican meeting there, he would not 
get many votes. Go down into Egypt, and you will 
find that he and his party are operating under an 
alias there, which his friend Trumbull has given 
them, in order that they may cheat the people. 
When I was down in Monroe County a few weeks 
ago, addressing the people, I saw handbills posted 
announcing that Mr. Trumbull was going to speak 
in behalf of Lincoln; and what do you think the 
name of his party was there? Why, the ''Free 
Democracy.'' Mr. Trumbull and Mr. Jehu Baker 
were announced to address the Free Democracy of 
Monroe County, and the bill was signed, "Many Free 
Democrats." The reason that Lincoln and his party 
adopted the name of "Free Democracy" down there 
was because Monroe County has always been an old- 
fashioned Democratic county, and hence it was 
necessary to make the people believe that they were 
Democrats, sympathized with them, and were fight- 
ing for Lincoln as Democrats. Come up to Spring- 
field, where Lincoln now lives, and always has lived, 
and you find that the Convention of his party which 
assembled to nominate candidates for Legislature, 
who are expected to vote for him if elected, dare not 
adopt the name of Republican, but assembled under 



io6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the title of "all opposed to the Democracy." Thus 
you find that Mr. Lincoln's creed cannot travel 
through even one half of the counties of this State, 
but that it changes its hues and becomes lighter and 
lighter as it travels from the extreme north, until 
it is nearly white when it reaches the extreme south 
end of the State. 

I ask you, my friends, why cannot Republicans 
avow their principles alike everywhere? I would 
despise myself if I thought that I was procuring 
your votes by concealing my opinions, and by avow- 
ing one set of principles in one part of the State, and 
a different set in another part. If I do not truly 
and honorably represent your feelings and principles, 
then I ought not to be your Senator ; and I will never 
conceal my opinions, or modify or change them a 
hair's breadth, in order to get votes. I tell you that 
this Chicago doctrine of Lincoln's — declaring that the 
negro and the white man are made equal by the 
Declaration of Independence and by Divine Provi- 
dence — is a monstrous heresy. The signers of the 
Declaration of Independence never dreamed of the 
negro when they were writing that document. They 
referred to white men, to men of European birth, 
and European descent, when they deciared the 
equality of all men. I see a gentleman there in the 
crowd shaking his head. Let me remind him that 
when Thomas Jefferson wrote that document, he was 
the owner, and so continued until his death, of a large 
number of slaves. Did he intend to sa}" in that 
Declaration that his negro slaves, which he held and 
treated as property, were created his equals by 



Stephen A. Douglas 107 

divine law, and that he was violating the law of God 
every day of his life by holding them as slaves? It 
must be borne in mind that when that Declaration 
was put forth, every one of the thirteen Colonies were 
slaveholding Colonies, and every man who signed 
that instrument represented a slaveholding con- 
stituency. Recollect, also, that no one of them 
emancipated his slaves, much less put them on an 
equality with himself, after he signed the Declaration . 
On the contrary, they all continued to hold their 
negroes as slaves during the Revolutionary War. 
Now, do you believe — are you willing to have it said 
— that every man who signed the Declaration of In- 
dependence declared the negro his equal, and then 
was hypocrite enough to continue to hold him as a 
slave, in violation of what he believed to be the 
divine law ? And yet when you say that the Declara- 
tion of Independence includes the negro, you charge 
the signers of it with hypocrisy. 

I say to you, frankly, that in my opinion this 
government was made by our fathers on the white 
basis. It was made by white men for the benefit of 
white men and their posterity forever, and was 
intended to be administered by white men in all time 
to come. But while I hold that under our Constitu- 
tion and political system the negro is not a citizen, 
cannot be a citizen, and ought not to be a citizen, it 
does not follow by an}^ means that he should be a 
slave. On the contrary, it does follow that the ne- 
gro, as an inferior race, ought to possess every right, 
every privilege, every immunity, which he can 
safely exercise, consistent with the safety of the 



io8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

society in which he lives. Humanity requires, and 
Christianity commands, that you shall extend to 
every inferior being, and every dependent being, all 
the privileges, immunities, and advantages which can 
be granted to them, consistent with the safety of so- 
ciety. If you ask me the nature and extent of these 
privileges, I answer that that is a question which 
the people of each State must decide for themselves. 
Illinois has decided that question for herself. We 
have said that in this State the negro shall not be a 
slave, nor shall he be a citizen. Kentucky holds a 
different doctrine. New York holds one different 
from either, and Maine one different from all. 
Virginia, in her policy on this question, differs in 
many respects from the others, and sc on, until 
there are hardly two States whose policy is exactly 
alike in regard to the relation of the white man and 
the negro. Nor can you reconcile them and make 
them alike. Each State must do as it pleases. 
Illinois had as much right to adopt the policy which 
we have on that subject as Kentucky had to adopt a 
different policy. The great principle of this govern- 
ment is, that each State has the right to do as it 
pleases on all these questions, and no other State or 
power on earth has the right to interfere with us, or 
complain of us merely because our system differs 
from theirs. In the Compromise measures of 1850, 
Mr. Clay declared that this great principle ought to 
exist in the Territories as well as in the States, and I 
reasserted his doctrine in the Kansas and Nebraska 
Bill of 1854. 

But Mr. Lincoln cannot be made to understand. 



Stephen A Douglas 109 

and those who are determined to vote for him, no 
matter whether he is a pro-slavery man in the South 
and a negro equahty advocate in the North, cannot 
be made to understand how it is that in a Territor}' 
the people can do as they please on the slavery ques- 
tion under the Dred Scott decision. Let us see 
whether I cannot explain it to the satisfaction of all 
impartial men. Chief Justice Taney has said, in his 
opinion in the Dred Scott case, that a negro slave, 
being property, stands on an equal footing with other 
property, and that the owner may carry them into 
United States territory the same as he does other 
property. Suppose any two of you, neighbors, 
should conclude to go to Kansas, one carrying 
$100,000 w^orth of negro slaves, and the other 
$100,000 worth of mixed merchandise, including 
quantities of liquors. You both agree that under 
that decision you may carry your property to 
Kansas; but when you get it there, the merchant 
who is possessed of the liquors is met by the Maine 
liquor law, which prohibits the sale or use of his 
property, and the owner of the slaves is met by 
equally unfriendly legislation, which makes his prop- 
erty worthless after he gets it there. What is the 
right to carry your property into the Territory 
worth to either, when unfriendly legislation in the 
Territory renders it worthless after you get it there ? 
The slaveholder when he gets his slaves there finds 
that there is no local law to protect him in holding 
them, no slave code, no police regulation maintaining 
and supporting him in his right, and he discovers 
at once that the absence of such friendly legislation 



no Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

excludes his property from the Territory just as ir- 
resistibly as if there was a positive constitutional 
prohibition excluding it. Thus you find it is with 
any kind of property in a Territory: it depends for 
its protection on the local and municipal law. If 
the people of a Territory want slavery, they make 
friendly legislation to introduce it; but if they do 
not want it, they withhold all protection from it, 
and then it cannot exist there. Such was the view 
taken on the subject by different Southern men when 
the Nebraska Bill passed. See the speech of Mr. Orr, 
of South Carolina, the present Speaker of the House 
of Representatives of Congress, made at that time; 
and there you will find this whole doctrine argued 
out at full length. Read the speeches of other 
Southern Congressmen, Senators and Representa- 
tives, made in 1854, and you will find that they took 
the same view of the subject as Mr. Orr, — that 
slavery could never be forced on a people who did not 
want it. I hold that in this country there is no 
power on the face of the globe that can force any 
institution on an unwilling people. The great funda- 
mental principle of our government is that the people 
of each State and each Territory shall be left per- 
fectly free to decide for themselves what shall be the 
nature and character of their institutions. When 
this government was made, it was based on that 
principle. At the time of its formation there were 
twelve slaveholding States and one free State in this 
Union. Suppose this doctrine of Mr. Lincoln and 
the Republicans, of uniformity of laws of all the 
States on the subject of slavery, had prevailed ; sup- 



Stephen A. Douglas m 

pose Mr. Lincoln himself had been a member of the 
Convention which framed the Constitution, and 
that he had risen in that august body, and, address- 
ing the father of his country, had said as he did at 
Springfield: "A house divided against itself cannot 
stand. I believe this government cannot endure 
permanently, half slave and half free. I do not 
expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the 
house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be 
divided. It will become all one thing or all the 
other." What do you think would have been the 
result? Suppose he had made that Convention 
believe that doctrine, and they had acted upon it, 
what do you think would have been the result? Do 
\^ou believe that the one free State would have out- 
v^oted the twelve slaveholding States, and thus 
abolish slavery? On the contrary, would not the 
twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one 
free State, and under his doctrine have fastened 
slavery by an irrevocable constitutional provision 
upon every inch of the American Republic? Thus 
you see that the doctrine he now advocates, if pro- 
claimed at the beginning of the government, would 
have established slavery everywhere throughout the 
American continent; and are you willing, now that 
we have the majorit}^ section, to exercise a power 
which we never would have submitted to when we 
were in the minority? If the Southern States had 
attempted to control our institutions, and make the 
States all slave, when they had the power, I ask 
would you have submitted to it ? If you would not, 
are you willing, now that we have become the 



112 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

strongest, under that great principle of self-govern- 
ment that allows each State to do as it pleases, to 
attempt to control the Southern institutions ? Then, 
my friends, I say to you that there is but one path of 
peace in this Republic, and that is to administer this 
government as our fathers made it, divided into free 
and slave States, allowing each State to decide for 
itself whether it wants slavery or not. If Illinois 
will settle the slavery question for herself, and mind 
her own business and let her neighbors alone, we will 
be at peace with Kentucky and every other Southern 
State. If every other State in the Union will do the 
same, there will be peace between the North and the 
South, and in the whole Union. 



MR. LINCOLN S REPLY. 

My Fellow-Citizens : A very large portion of the 
speech which Judge Douglas has addressed to you 
has previously been delivered and put in print. I 
do not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all. 
If I had not been interrupted, I was going to say 
that such an answer as I was able to make to a very 
large portion of it had already been more than once 
made and published. There has been an opportunity 
afforded to the public to see our respective views 
upon the topics discussed in a large portion of the 
speech which he has just delivered. I make these 
remarks for the purpose of excusing myself for not 
passing over the entire ground that the Judge has 
traversed. I however desire to take up some of the 
points that he has attended to, and ask your atten- 



Abraham Lincoln 113 

tion to them, and I shall follow him backwards upon 
some notes which I have taken, reversing the order, 
by beginning where he concluded. 

The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of In- 
dependence, and insisted that negroes are not in- 
cluded in that Declaration; and that it is a slander 
upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that 
negroes were meant therein; and he asks you: Is it 
possible to believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned 
the immortal paper, could have supposed himself 
applying the language of that instrument to the negro 
race, and yet held a portion of that race in slavery? 
Would he not at once have freed them ? I only have 
to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and 
that, too, very briefly, for I shall not detain myself, 
or you, upon that point for any great length of time), 
that I believe the entire records of the world, from 
the date of the Declaration of Independence up to 
within three years ago, may be searched in vain for 
one single affirmation, from one single man, that the 
negro was not included in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence ; I think I may defy Judge Douglas to show 
that he ever said so, that Washington ever said so, 
that any President ever said so, that an}^ member of 
Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon 
the whole earth ever said so, until the necessities of 
the present policy of the Democratic party, in regard 
to slavery, had to invent that affirmation. And I 
will remind Judge Douglas and this audience that 
while Mr. Jefferson was the owner of slaves, as un- 
doubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very sub- 
ject he used the strong language that "he trembled 



114 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

for his country when he remembered that God was 
just"; and I will offer the highest premium in my 
power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in 
all his life, ever uttered a sentiment at all akin to that 
of Jefferson. 

The next thing to which I will ask your attention is 
the Judge's comments upon the fact, as he assumes 
it to be, that we cannot call our public meetings as 
Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell 
County as one of the places where the friends of 
Lincoln have called a public meeting and have not 
dared to name it a Republican meeting. He in- 
stances Monroe County as another, where Judge 
Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed the persons 
whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of Lincoln, 
calling them the "Free Democracy." I have the 
honor to inform Judge Douglas that he spoke in that 
very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was 
there on Tuesday last; and when he spoke there, he 
spoke under a call not venturing to use the word 
"Democrat." [Turning to Judge Douglas.] What 
think you of this? 

So, again, there is another thing to which I would 
ask the Judge's attention upon this subject. In the 
contest of 1856 his party delighted to call themselves 
together as the "National Democracy"; but now, 
if there should be a notice put up anywhere for a 
meeting of the "National Democracy," Judge Doug- 
las and his friends would not come. They would 
not suppose themselves invited. They would under- 
stand that it was a call for those hateful postmasters 
whom he talks about. 



Abraham Lincoln 115 

Now a few words in regard to these extracts from 
speeches of mine which Judge Douglas has read to 
you, and which he supposes are in very great con- 
trast to each other. Those speeches have been be- 
fore the pubUc for a considerable time, and if they 
have any inconsistency in them, if there is any con- 
flict in them, the public have been able to detect it. 
When the Judge says, in speaking on this subject, 
that I make speeches of one sort for the people of the 
northern end of the State, and of a different sort for 
the southern people, he assumes that I do not under- 
stand that my speeches will be put in print and read 
north and south. I knew all the while that the 
speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made at 
Jonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be 
put in print, and all the reading and intelligent men 
in the community would see them and know all 
about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and 
do not now suppose, that there is any conflict what- 
ever between them. But the Judge will have it that 
if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality 
between the white and black races which justifies us 
in making them slaves, we must then insist that there 
is a degree of equality that requires us to make them 
our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad 
distinction in regard to that matter; and that is all 
there is in these different speeches which he arrays 
here ; and the entire reading of either of the speeches 
will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps 
by taking two parts of the same speech he could have 
got up as much of a conflict as the one he has found. 
I have all the while maintained that in so far as it 



ii6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

should be insisted that there was an equality between 
the white and black races that should produce a per- 
fect social and political equality, it was an impos- 
sibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, 
and with it I have said that in their right to "life, 
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as proclaimed 
in that old Declaration, the inferior races are our 
equals. And these declarations I have constantly 
made in reference to the abstract moral question, to 
contemplate and consider when we are legislating 
about any new country which is not already cursed 
with the actual presence of the evil,— slavery. I 
have never manifested any impatience with the 
necessities that spring from the actual presence of 
black people amongst us, and the actual existence of 
slavery amongst us where it does already exist ; but 
I have insisted that, in legislating for new countries 
where it does not exist there is no just rule other than 
that of moral and abstract right! With reference to 
those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a 
people to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" 
were the just rules to be constantly referred to. There 
is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested 
to misunderstand it. I take it that I have to address 
an intelligent and reading community, who will peruse 
what I say, weigh it, and then judge whether I ad- 
vanced improper or unsound views, or whether I 
advanced hypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary 
views in different portions of the country. I be- 
lieve myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, 
though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely 
free from all error in the opinions I advance. 



Abraham Lincoln 117 

The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard 
to the distinction between his party and our party. 
His he assumes to be a national party, — ours a sec- 
tional one. He does this in asking the question 
whether this country has any interest in the main- 
tenance of the Republican party. He assumes that 
our party is altogether sectional, that the party to 
which he adheres is national; and the argument is, 
that no party can be a rightful party — can be based 
upon rightful principles — unless it can announce 
its principles everywhere. I presume that Judge 
Douglas could not go into Russia and announce the 
doctrine of our national Democracy; he could not 
denounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and 
monarchies in Russia; and it may be true of this 
country that in some places we may not be able to 
proclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of 
democracy, because there is a section so directly 
opposed to it that they will not tolerate us in doing 
so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doctrine 
that in some places people won't let you proclaim it? 
Is that the way to test the truth of any doctrine? 
Why, I understood that at one time the people of 
Chicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a cer- 
tain favorite doctrine of his. I commend to his con- 
sideration the question whether he takes that as a 
test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. 

There is another thing to which I wish to ask 
attention for a little while on this occasion. What 
has always been the evidence brought forward to 
prove that the Republican party is a sectional party ? 
The main one was that in the Southern portion of the 



ii8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Union the people did not let the Republicans pro- 
claim their doctrines amongst them. That has been 
the main evidence brought forward, — that they had 
no supporters, or substantially none, in the Slave 
States. The South have not taken hold of our prin- 
ciples as we announce them; nor does Judge Douglas 
now grapple with those principles. We have a 
Republican State Platform, laid down in Springfield 
in June last, stating our position all the way through 
the questions before the country. We are now far 
advanced in this canvass. Judge Douglas and I 
hav( made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we 
have now for the fifth time met face to face in debate, 
and up to this day I have not found either Judge 
Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the 
Republican platform, or laying his finger upon any- 
thing in it that is wrong. I ask you all to recollect 
that. Judge Douglas turns away from the platform 
of principles to the fact that he can find people some- 
where who will not allow us to announce those prin- 
ciples. If he had great confidence that our principles 
were wrong, he would take hold of them and demon- 
strate them to be wrong. But he does not do so. 
The only evidence he has of their being wrong is in 
the fact that there are people who won't allow us to 
preach them. I ask again, is that the way to test 
the soundness of a doctrine? 

I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule 
of nationality he is himself fast becoming sectional. 
I ask his attention to the fact that his speeches would 
not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they 
have formerly gone there. I ask his attention to the 



Abraham Lincoln 119 

fact that he feUcitates himself to-day that all the 
Democrats of the free States are agreeing with him, 
while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any 
slave State agree with him. If he has not thought 
of this, I commend to his consideration the evidence 
in his own declaration, on this day, of his becoming 
sectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. What- 
ever may be the result of this ephemeral contest be- 
tween Judge Douglas and myself, I see the day 
rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, 
which he has been thrusting down the throats of 
Republicans for years past, will be crowded down 
his own throat. 

Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the 
beginning of his speech) about the Compromise of 
1850 containing the principles of the Nebraska Bill, 
although I have often presented my views upon that 
subject, yet as I have not done so in this canvass, 
I will, if you please, detain you a little with them. I 
have always maintained, so far as I was able, that 
there was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska 
Bill in the Compromise of 1850 at all, — nothing 
whatever. Where can you find the principle of the 
Nebraska Bill in that Compromise? If an^^where, 
in the two pieces of the Compromise organizing the 
Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It was ex- 
pressly provided in these two acts that when they 
came to be admitted into the Union they should be 
admitted with or without slavery, as they should 
choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was 
said in either of those acts as to what was to be done 
in relation to slavery during the Territorial existence 



I20 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantly 
made the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing 
him as a leader) that, in his opinion, the old Mexican 
laws would control that question during the Terri- 
torial existence, and that these old Mexican laws 
excluded slavery. How can that be used as a prin- 
ciple for declaring that during the Territorial exist- 
ence as well as at the time of framing the constitution 
the people, if you please, might have slaves if they 
wanted them? I am not discussing the question 
whether it is right or wrong; but how are the New 
Mexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska 
Bill ? I maintain that the organization of Utah and 
New Mexico did not establish a general principle at 
all. It had no feature of establishing a general 
principle. The acts to which I have referred were a 
part of a general system of Compromises. They did 
not lay down what was proposed as a regular policy 
for the Territories, only an agreement in this particu- 
lar case to do in that way, because other things were 
done that were to be a compensation for it. They 
were allowed to come in in that shape, because in 
another way it was paid for, — considering that as a 
part of that system of measures called the Com- 
promise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen 
acts. It included the admission of California as a 
free State, which was kept out of the Union for half 
a year because it had formed a free constitution. It 
included the settlement of the boundary of Texas, 
which had been undefined before, which was in itself 
a slavery question ; for if you pushed the line farther 
west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave 



Abraham Lincoln 121 

territory; while, if you drew the line toward the 
east, you narrowed the boundary and diminished the 
domain of slavery, and by so much increased free 
territory. It included the abolition of the slave 
trade in the District of Columbia. It included the 
passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. All these 
things were put together, and, though passed in 
separate acts, were nevertheless, in legislation (as 
the speeches at the time will show), made to depend 
upon each other. Each got votes with the under- 
standing that the other measures were to pass, and 
by this system of compromise, in that series of meas- 
ures, those two bills — the New Mexico and Utah bills 
— were passed : and I say for that reason they could 
not be taken as models, framed upon their own in- 
trinsic principle, for all future Territories. And I 
have the evidence of this in the fact that Judge 
Douglas, a year afterward, or more than a year after- 
ward, perhaps, when he first introduced bills for the 
purpose of framing new Territories, did not attempt 
to follow these bills of New Mexico and Utah; and 
even when he introduced this Nebraska Bill, I think 
you will discover that he did not exactly follow them. 
But I do not wish to dwell at great length upon this 
branch of the discussion. My own opinion is, that a 
thorough investigation will show most plainly that 
the New Mexico and Utah bills were part of a system 
of compromise, and not designed as patterns for 
future Territorial legislation ; and that this Nebraska 
Bill did not follow them as a pattern at all. 

The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed 
to making any odious distinctions between free and 



122 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

slave States. I am altogether unaware that the 
Republicans are in favor of making any odious dis- 
tinctions between the free and slave States. But 
there is still a difference, I think, between Judge 
Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose that 
the real difference between Judge Douglas and his 
friends, and the Republicans on the contrary, is, 
that the Judge is not in favor of making any differ- 
ence between slavery and liberty ; that he is in favor 
of eradicating, of pressing out of view, the questions 
of preference in this country for free or slave institu- 
tions; and consequently every sentiment he utters 
discards the idea that there is any wrong in slavery. 
Everything that emanates from him or his coadjutors 
in their course of policy carefully excludes the thought 
that there is anything wrong in slavery. All their 
arguments, if you will consider them, will be seen to 
exclude the thought that there is anything whatever 
wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judge's 
speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences 
expressed by him, — as his declaration that he "don't 
care whether slavery is voted up or down," — you will 
see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not 
admit that slavery is wrong. If you do admit that it 
is wrong. Judge Douglas cannot logically say he don't 
care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. 
Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants 
slavery they have a right to have it. He can say 
that logically, if he says that there is no wrong in 
slavery ; but if 3^ou admit that there is a wrong in it, 
he cannot logically say that anybody has a right to 
do wrong. He insists that upon the score of equality 



Abraham Lincoln 123 

the owners of slaves and owners of property — of 
horses and every other sort of property — should be 
alike, and hold them alike in a new Territory. That 
is perfectly logical if the two species of property are 
alike and are equally founded in right. But if you 
admit that one of them is wrong, you cannot insti- 
tute any equality between right and wrong. And 
from this difference of sentiment, — the belief on the 
part of one that the institution is wrong, and a policy 
springing from that belief which looks to the arrest 
of the enlargement of that wrong, and this other 
sentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung 
from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of 
preventing the wrong from growing larger, and looks 
to there never being an end to it through all the exist- 
ence of things, — arises the real difference between 
Judge Douglas and his friends on the one hand and 
the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess my- 
self as belonging to that class in the country who 
contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political 
evil, having due regard for its actual existence 
amongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in 
any satisfactory way, and to all the constitutional 
obligations which have been thrown about it; but, 
nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the pre- 
vention of it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the 
time when as a wrong it may come to an end. 

Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth 
time, if not the seventh, in m}^ presence, reiterated 
his charge of a conspiracy or combination between 
the National Democrats and Republicans. What 
evidence Judge Douglas has upon this subject I 



124 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

know not, inasmuch as he never favors us with any. 
I have said upon a former occasion, and I do not 
choose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to 
the division in the Judge's party. He got it up him- 
self. It was all his and their work. He had, I think, 
a great deal more to do with the steps that led to 
the Lecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had ; 
though at last, when they reached it, they quarrelled 
over it, and their friends divided upon it. I am very 
free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objec- 
tion to the division ; but I defy the Judge to show any 
evidence that I have in any way promoted that divi- 
sion, unless he insists on being a witness himself in 
merely saying so. I can give all fair friends of Judge 
Douglas here to understand exactly the view that 
Republicans take in regard to that division. Don't 
you remember how two years ago the opponents of 
the Democratic party were divided between Fremont 
and Fillmore ? I guess 3^ou do. Any Democrat who 
remembers that division w411 remember also that he 
was at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able 
to see all there is between the National Democrats and 
the Republicans. What we now think of the two di- 
visions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fre- 
mont and Fillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. 
But if the Judge continues to put forward the 
declaration that there is an unholy and unnatural 
alliance between the Republicans and the National 
Democrats, I now want to enter my protest against 
receiving him as an entirely competent witness upon 
that subject. I want to call to the Judge's attention 
an attack he made upon me in the first one of these 



Abraham Lincoln 125 

debates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order 
to fix extreme Abolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas 
read a set of resolutions which he declared had 
been passed by a Republican State Convention, 
in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he 
declared I had taken part in that Convention. It 
turned out that although a few men calling them 
selves an anti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at 
Springfield about that time, yet neither did I take 
any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or any 
such resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So ap- 
parent had it become that the resolutions which he 
read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by 
a State Convention in which I had taken part, that 
seven days afterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas 
declared that he had been misled by Charles H. 
Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. 
Harris, member of Congress in that district, and he 
promised in that speech that when he went to Spring- 
field he would investigate the matter. Since then 
Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I pre- 
sume has made the investigation; but a month has 
passed since he has been there, and, so far as I know, 
he has made no report of the result of his investi- 
gation. I have waited as I think sufficient time for 
the report of that investigation, and I have some 
curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, an absolute 
forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it 
was traced to the three, — Lanphier, Harris, and 
Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed in any way 
so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge 
Douglas's report would probably show. 



126 Lincoln and Dousflas Debates 



fe' 



It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge 
Douglas were published in the Illinois State Register 
on the 1 6th of October, 1854, as being the resolutions 
of an anti-Nebraska Convention which had sat in that 
same month of October, at Springfield. But it is also 
true that the publication in the Register was a forgery 
then, and the question is still behind, which of the 
three, if not all of them, committed that forgery. 
The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. 
The article in the Illinois State Register contains part 
of the real proceedings of that Springfield Conven- 
tion, showing that the writer of the arti:le had the 
real proceedings before him, and purposely threw 
out the genuine resolutions passed by the Convention 
and fraudulently substituted the others. Lanphier 
then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so that 
there seems to be but little room for his escape. 
But then it is to be borne in mind that Lanphier had 
less interest in the object of that forgery than either 
of the other two. The main object of that forgery at 
that time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Con- 
gress, and that object was known to be exceedingly 
dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris and 
Douglas were both in Springfield when the Con- 
vention was in session, and although they both left 
before the fraud appeared in the Register, subsequent 
events show that they have both had their eyes fixed 
upon that Convention. 

The fraud having been apparently successful upon 
the occasion, both Harris and Douglas have more 
than once since then been attempting to put it to 
new uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned 



Abraham Lincoln 127 

husband was brought home with his body full of 
eels, said when she was asked what was to be done 
with him, ''Take the eels out and set him again," so 
Harris and Douglas have shown a disposition to take 
the eels out of that stale fraud by which they gained 
Harris's election, and set the fraud again more than 
once. On the 9th of July, 1856, Douglas attempted 
a repetition of it upon Trumbull on the floor of the 
Senate of the United States, as will appear from the 
appendix of the Congressional Globe of that date. 

On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again 
upon Norton in the House of Representatives, as will 
appear by the same documents, — the appendix to 
the Congressional Globe of that date. On the 21st 
of August last, all three — Lanphier, Douglas, and 
Harris — reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It has 
been clung to and played out again and again as an 
exceedingly high trump by this blessed trio. And 
now that it has been discovered publicly to be a fraud 
we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise at 
it at all. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who 
miist have known it to be a fraud from the beginning. 
He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cosey now and 
just as active in the concoction of new schemes as 
they were before the general discovery of this fraud. 
Now, all this is very natural if they are all alike 
guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any 
one of them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists 
that the rule of honor among thieves does not quite 
require him to take all upon himself, and conse- 
quently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to 
make a satisfactory report upon his investigation. 



128 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

But meanwhile the three are agreed that each is "a 
most honorable man.'" 

Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth 
and honor by a re-election to the United States 
Senate, and he makes and reports against me and 
against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges 
which we know to be utterly untrue, without for a 
moment seeming to think that this one unexplained 
fraud, which h3 promised to investigate, will be the 
least drawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. 
He asks a re-election to the lower House of Congress 
without seeming to remember at all that he is in- 
volved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois 
State Register, edited by Lanphier, then, as now, the 
central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues 
to din the public ear with this assertion, without 
seeming to suspect that these assertions are at all 
lacking in title to belief. 

After all, the question still recurs upon us. How 
did that fraud originally get into the State Register? 
Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of that paper. 
Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of 
how and by whom it was originally concocted. Can 
he be induced to tell, or, if he has told, can Judge 
Douglas be induced to tell how it originally was con- 
cocted ? It may be true that Lanphier insists that the 
two men for whose benefit it was originally devised 
shall at least bear their share of it! How that is, I do 
not know, and while it remains unexplained I hope 
to be pardoned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge 
Douglas making charges against Trumbull and myself 
is not quite sufficient evidence to establish them! 



Abraham Lincoln 129 

While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint 
discussions, I answered certain interrogatories which 
Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and then in 
turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of 
way answered. The third one of these interroga- 
tories I have with me, and wish now to make some 
comments upon it. It was in these words: "If the 
Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that 
the States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, 
are you in favor of acquiescing in, adhering to, and 
following such decision as a rule of political action?" 

To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no 
answer in any just sense of the word. He contented 
himself with sneering at the thought that it was 
possible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a 
decision. He sneered at me for propounding the 
interrogatory. I had not propounded it without 
some reflection, and I wish now to address to this 
audience some remarks upon it. 

In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe 
it is, of the Constitution of the United States, we 
find the following language : 

''This Constitution and the laws of the United States 
which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all 
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the au- 
thonty of the United States, shall be the supreme law 
of the land; and the judges in every State shall be 
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of 
any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 

The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed 
into the sentence which I will now read: "Now, as 



130 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, 
upon a different point, the right of property in a 
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Con- 
stitution." I repeat it, ''The right of property in a 
slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Con- 
stitution''! What is it to be ''affirmed'' in the Con- 
stitution? Made firm in the Constitution, — so made 
that it cannot be separated from the Constitution 
without breaking the Constitution; durable as the 
Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, 
remembering the provision of the Constitution which 
I have read — affirming that that instrument is the 
supreme law of the land; that the judges of every 
State shall be bound by it, any law or constitution of 
any State to the contrary notwithstanding ; that the 
right f property in a slave is affirmed in that Con- 
stitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be 
separated from it without breaking it; durable as 
the instrument; part of the instrument; — what fol- 
lows as a short and even syllogistic argument from 
it ? I think it follows, and I submit to the considera- 
tion of men capable of arguing whether, as I state it, 
in syllogistic form, the argument has any fault in it: 

Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State 
can destroy a right distinctly and expressly affirmed 
in the Constitution of the United States. 

The right of property in a slave is distinctly and 
expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the United 
States. 

Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of 
any State can destroy the right of property in a 
slave. 



Abraham Lincoln 131 

I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that 
argument; assuming the truth of the premises, the 
conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all to under- 
stand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it as 
I think, but the fault is not in the reasoning; but the 
falsehood in fact is a fault of the premises. I believe 
that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly 
and expressly affiniied in the Constitution, and Judge 
Douglas thinks it is. I believe that the Supreme 
Court and the advocates of that decision may search 
in vain for the place in the Constitution where the 
right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly 
affirmed. I say, therefore, that I think one of the 
premises is not true in fact. But it is true with Judge 
Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pro- 
nounced it. They are estopped from denying it, and 
being estopped from denying it, the conclusion follows 
that, the Constitution of the United States being the 
supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere 
with it. It being affirmed in the decision that the 
right of property in a slave is distinctly and ex- 
pressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusion 
inevitably follows that no State law or constitution 
can destroy that right. I then say to Judge Douglas 
and to all others that I think it will take a better 
answer than a sneer to show that those who have 
said that the right of property in a slave is distinctly 
and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, are not 
prepared to show that no constitution or law can 
destroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far 
better argument than a mere sneer to show to the 
minds of intelligent men that whoever has so said is 



132 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far 
advanced as to justify it, to say the other. This is 
but an opinion, and the opinion of one very humble 
man; but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott 
decision, as it is, never would have been made in its 
present form if the party that made it had not been 
sustained previously by the elections. My own 
opinion is, that the new Dred Scott decision, decid- 
ing against the right of the people of the States to ex- 
clude slavery, will never be made if that party is not 
sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that 
it is just as sure to be made as to-morrow is to come, 
if that party shall be sustained. I have said, upon a 
former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the course 
of argument that Judge Douglas makes use of upon 
this subject (I charge not his motives in this), is pre- 
paring the public mind for that new Dred Scott 
decision. I have asked him again to point out to 
me the reasons for his first adherence to the Dred 
Scott decision as it is. I have turned his attention to 
the fact that General Jackson differed with him in 
regard to the political obligation of a Supreme Court 
decision. I have asked his attention to the fact that 
Jefferson differed with him in regard to the political 
obligation of a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson 
said that "Judges are as honest as other men, and 
not more so." And he said, substantially, that 
whenever a free people should give up in absolute 
submission to any department of government, 
retaining for themselves no appeal from it, their 
liberties were gone. I have asked his attention to 
the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he 



Abraham Lincoln 133 

says he stands, disregards a time-honored decision of 
the Supreme Court, in denying the power of Con- 
gress to estabhsh a National Bank. I have asked 
his attention to the fact that he himself was one of the 
most active instruments at one time in breaking 
down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois 
because it had made a decision distasteful to him, — a 
struggle ending in the remarkable circumstance of his 
sitting down as one of the new Judges who were to 
overslaugh that decision; getting his title of Judge 
in that very way. 

So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all 
from Judge Douglas upon these subjects. Not one 
can I get from him, except that he swells himself up 
and says, "All of us who stand by the decision of the 
vSuprem.e Court are the friends of the Constitution; 
all you fellows that dare question it in any way are 
the enemies of the Constitution." Now, in this very 
devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to 
all the great political leaders whom he has recog- 
nized as leaders, in opposition to his former self and 
history, there is something very marked. And the 
manner in which he adheres to it, — not as being 
right upon the merits, as he conceives (because he 
did not discuss that at all), but as being absolutely 
obligatory upon every one simply because of the 
source from whence it comes, as that which no man 
can gainsay, whatever it may be, — this is another 
marked feature of his adherence to that decision. 
It marks it in this respect, that it commits him to 
the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as 
obligatory as this one, since he does not investigate 



134 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or 
wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring 
whether it is right or wrong. He teaches men this 
doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind to 
take the next decision when it comes, without any 
inquiry. In this I think I argue fairly (without 
questioning motives at all) that Judge Douglas is 
most ingeniously and powerfully preparing the public 
mind to take that decision when it comes; and not 
only so, but he is doing it in various other ways. In 
these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions 
that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or 
voted down ' ' ; that ' ' whoever wants slavery has a 
right to have it " ; that ' ' upon principles of equality 
it should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there 
is no inconsistency between free and slave institu- 
tions " — in this he is also preparing (whether pur- 
posely or not) the way for making the institution of 
slavery national! I repeat again, for I wish no mis- 
understanding, that I do not charge that he means 
it so; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if you 
were going to get the best instrument you could, and 
then set it to work in the most ingenious way, to pre- 
pare the public mind for this movement, operating 
in the free States, where there is now an abhorrence 
of the institution of slavery, could you find an instru- 
ment so capable of doing it as Judge Douglas, or one 
employed in so apt a way to do it? 

I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, 
that Mr. Clay, when he was once answering an objec- 
tion to the Colonization Society, that it had a tendency 
to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that 



Abraham Lincoln 135 

"those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and 
ultimate emancipation must do more than put down the 
benevolent efforts of the Colonization Society: they 
must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, 
and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyous 
return ; they must blow out the moral lights around us ; 
they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the 
light of reason and the love of liberty!" 

And I do think — I repeat, though I said it on a 
former occasion — that Judge Douglas and whoever, 
like him, teaches that the negro has no share, 
humble though it may be, in the Declaration of 
Independence, is going back to the era of our liberty 
and independence, and, so far as in him lies, muz- 
zling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous 
return; that he is blowing out the moral lights 
around us, when he contends that whoever wants 
slaves has a right to hold them ; that he is penetrat- 
ing, so far as lies in his power, the human soul, and 
eradicating the light of reason and the love of 
liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing 
the public mind, by his vast influence, for making 
the institution of slavery perpetual and national. 

There is, my friends, only one other point to which 
I will call your attention for the remaining time that 
I have left me, and perhaps I shall not occupy the 
entire time that I have, as that one point may not 
take me clear through it. 

Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas 
propounded to me at Freeport, there was one in 
about this language: "Are you opposed to the 
acquisition of any further territory to the United 



136 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

States, unless slavery shall first be prohibited 
therein?" I answered, as I thought, in this way: 
that I am not generally opposed to the acquisition of 
additional territory, and that I would support a 
proposition for the acquisition of additional terri- 
tory according as my supporting it was or was not 
calculated to aggravate this slavery question amongst 
us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another in- 
terrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are 
you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in 
disregard of how it may affect us upon the slavery 
question?" Judge Douglas answered, — that is, in 
his own way he answered it. I believe that, although 
he took a good many words to answer it, it was a 
little more fully answered than any other. The sub- 
stance of his answer was that this country would 
continue to expand; that it would need additional 
territory; that it was as absurd to suppose that we 
could continue upon our present territory, enlarging 
in population as we are, as it would be to hoop a 
boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow to 
man's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it 
was something like, that. Consequently, he was in 
favor of the acquisition of further territory as fast as 
we might need it, in disregard of how it might affect 
the slavery question . I do not say this as giving his 
exact language, but he said so substantially; and he 
would leave the question of slavery, where the terri- 
tory was acquired, to be settled by the people of the 
acquired territory. ["That's the doctrine."] May 
be it is; let us consider that for a while. This will 
probably, in the run of things, become one of the 



Abraham Lincoln 137 

concrete manifestations of this slavery question. If 
Judge Douglas's policy upon this question succeeds, 
and gets fairly settled down, until all opposition is 
crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for the 
territory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich 
lands of South America, then the adjoining islands 
will follow, each one of which promises additional 
slave -fields. And this question is to be left to the 
people of those countries for settlement. When we 
get Mexico, I don't know whether the Judge will be 
in favor of the Mexican people that we get with it 
settling that question for themselves and all others; 
because we know the Judge has a great horror for 
mongrels, and I understand that the people of 
Mexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I 
understand that there is not more than one person 
there out of eight who is pure white, and I suppose 
from the Judge's previous declaration that when we 
get Mexico, or any considerable portion of it, that he 
will be in favor of these mongrels settling the ques- 
tion, which would bring him somewhat into collision 
with his horror of an inferior race. 

It is to be remembered, though, that this power of 
acquiring additional territory is a power confided to 
the President and the Senate of the United States. 
It is a power not under the control of the repre- 
sentatives of the people any further than they, the 
President and the Senate, can be considered the repre- 
sentatives of the people. Let me illustrate that by a 
case we have in our history. When we acquired the 
territory from Mexico in the Mexican War, the House 
of Representatives, composed of the immediate 



138 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

representatives of the people, all the time insisted 
that the territory thus to be acquired should be 
brought in upon condition that slavery should be 
forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in 
the language that slavery had been prohibited from 
coming into this country. That was insisted upon 
constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance 
that any territory thus acquired should have that 
prohibition in it, so far as the House of Representa- 
tives was concerned. But at last the President and 
Senate acquired the territory without asking the 
House of Representatives anything about it, and 
took it without that prohibition. They have the 
power of acquiring territory without the immediate 
representatives of the people being called upon to say 
anything about it, and thus furnishing a very apt and 
powerful means of bringing new territory into the 
Union, and, when it is once brought into the country, 
involving us anew in this slavery agitation. It is 
therefore, as I think, a very im.portant question for 
che consideration of the American people, whethei 
the policy of bringing in additional territory, without 
considering at all how it will operate upon the safety 
of the Union in reference to this one great disturbing 
element in our national politics, shall be adopted as 
the policy of the country. You will bear in mind that 
it is to be acquired, according to the Judge's view, as 
fast as it is needed, and the indefinite part of this 
proposition is that we have only Judge Douglas and 
his class of men to decide how fast it is needed. We 
have no clear and certain way of determining or 
demonstrating how fast territory is needed by the 



Abraham Lincoln 139 

necessities of the country. Whoever wants to go 
out fihbustering, then, thinks that more territory is 
needed. Whoever wants wider slave-fields feels 
sure that some additional territory is needed as slave 
territory. Then it is as easy to show the necessity of 
additional slave-territory as it is to assert anything 
that is incapable of absolute demonstration. What- 
ever motive a man or a set of men may have for 
making annexation of property or territory, it is very 
eas}^ to assert, but much less easy to disprove, that 
it is necessary for the wants of the country. 

And now it only remains for me to say that I think 
it is a very grave question for the people of this 
Union to consider, whether, in view of the fact that 
this slavery question has been the only one that has 
ever endangered our Republican institutions, the 
only one that has ever threatened or menaced a dis- 
solution of the Union, that has ever disturbed us in 
such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of 
our liberty, — in view of these facts, I think it is an 
exceedingly interesting and important question for 
this people to consider whether we shall engage in 
the policy of acquiring additional territory, dis- 
carding altogether from our consideration, while 
obtaining new territory, the question how it may 
affect us in regard to this, the only endangering 
element to our liberties and national greatness. The 
Judge's view has been expressed. I, in my answer 
to his question, have expressed mine. I think it will 
become an important and practical question. Our 
views are before the public. I am willing and 
anxious that they should consider them fully; that 



HO Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

they should turn it about and consider the import- 
ance of the question, and arrive at a just conclusion 
as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of this 
Union, in the acquisition of new territory, to con- 
sider whether it will add to the disturbance that is 
existing amongst us — whether it will add to the one 
only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuit}'' 
of the Union or our own liberties. I think it is 
extremely important that they shall decide, and 
rightly decide, that question before entering upon 
that policy. 

And now, my friends, having said the little I wish 
to say upon this head, whether I have occupied the 
whole of the remnant of my time or not, I believe I 
could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it 
fully, without transcending my time, which I would 
not for a moment think of doing. I give way to 
Judge Douglas. 



i 



MR. DOUGLAS S REPLY. 

Gentlemen: The highest compliment you can 
pay me during the brief half-hour that I have to 
conclude is by observing a strict silence. I desire to 
be heard rather than to be applauded. 

The first criticism that Mr. Lincoln makes on my 
speech was that it was in substance what I have said 
everywhere else in the State where I have addressed 
the people. I wish I could say the same of his speech. 
Why, the reason I complain of him is because he 
makes one speech north, and another south — be- 
cause he has one set of sentiments for the Abolition 



Stephen A. Douglas 141 

counties, and another set for the counties opposed to 
AboHtionism. My point of complaint against him 
is that I cannot induce him to hold up the same 
standard, to carry the same flag, in all parts of the 
State. He does not pretend, and no other man will, 
that I have one set of principles for Galesburgh, and 
another for Charleston. He does not pretend that I 
hold to one doctrine in Chicago, and an opposite one 
in Jonesboro. I have proved that he has a different 
set of principles for each of these localities. All I 
asked of him was that he should deliver the speech 
that he has made here to-day in Coles County 
instead of in old Knox. It would have settled the 
question between us in that doubtful county. Here 
I understand him to reaffirm the doctrine of negro 
equality, and to assert that by the Declaration of 
Independence the negro is declared equal to the 
white man. He tells you to-day that the negro was 
included in the Declaration of Independence when 
it asserted that all men were created equal. ["We 
believe it."] Very well. 

Mr. Lincoln asserts to-day, as he did at Chicago, 
that the negro was included in that clause of the 
Declaration of Independence which says that all 
men were created equal and endowed by the Creator 
with certain inalienable rights, among which are life, 
liVjerty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the negro 
was made his equal and mine, if that equality was 
established by divine law, and was the negro's 
inalienable right, how came he to say at Charleston to 
the Kentuckians residing in that section of our State 
that the negro was physically inferior to the white 



142 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

man, belonged to an inferior race, and he was for 
keeping him in that inferior condition. There he 
gave the people to understand that there was no 
moral question involved, because, the inferiority 
being established, it was only a question of degree, 
and not a question of right; here, to-day, instead of 
making it a question of degree, he makes it a moral 
question; says that it is a great crime to hold the 
negro in that inferior condition. ["He's right."] 
Is he right now, or was he right in Charleston? 
["Both."] He is right, then, sir, in your estimation, 
not because he is consistent, but because he can trim 
his principles any way, in any section, so as to secure 
votes. All I desire of him is that he will declare the 
same principles in the south that he does in the 
north. 

But did you notice how he answered my position 
that a man should hold the same doctrines through- 
out the length and breadth of this Republic? He 
said, "Would Judge Douglas go to Russia and pro- 
claim the same principles he does here?" I would 
remind him that Russia is not under the American 
Constitution. If Russia was a part of the American 
Republic, under our Federal Constitution, and I was 
sworn to support the Constitution, I would maintain 
the same doctrine in Russia that I do in Illinois. 
The slaveholding States are governed by the same 
Federal Constitution as ourselves, and hence a man's 
principles, in order to be in harmony with the Con- 
stitution, must be the same in the South as they are 
in the North, the same in the Free States as they are 
in the Slave States. Whenever a man advocates one 



Stephen A. Douglas 143 

set of principles in one section, and another set in 
another section, his opinions are in violation of the 
spirit of the Constitution which he has sworn to sup- 
port. When Mr. Lincoln went to Congress in 1847 
and, laying his hand upon the Holy Evangelists, 
made a solemn vow, in the presence of high Heaven, 
that he would be faithful to the Constitution, what 
did he mean, — the Constitution as he expounds it in 
Galesburgh, or the Constitution as he expounds it 
in Charleston? 

Mr. lyincoln has devoted considerable time to the 
circumstance that at Ottawa I read a series of 
resolutions as having been adopted at Springfield, 
in this State, on the 4th or 5th of October, 1854, 
which happened not to have been adopted there. 
He has used hard names; has dared to talk about 
fraud, about forgery, and has insinuated that there 
was a conspiracy between Mr. Lanphier, Mr. Harris, 
and myself to perpetrate a forgery. Now, bear in 
mind that he does not deny that these resolutions 
were adopted in a majority of all the Repubhcan 
counties of this State in that year ; he does not deny 
that they were declared to be the platform of this 
Republican party in the first Congressional District, 
in the second, in the third, and in m.any counties of 
the fourth, and that they thus became the platform 
of his party in a majority of the counties upon which 
he now relies for support; he does not deny the 
truthfulness of the resolutions, but takes exception 
to the spot on which they were adopted. He takes to 
himself great merit because he thinks they were not 
adopted on the right spot for me to use them against 



144 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

him, just as he was very severe in Congress upon the 
Government of his country when he thought that he 
had discovered that the Mexican War was not begun 
in the right spot, and was therefore unjust. He tries 
very hard to make out that there is something very 
extraordinary in the place where the thing was done, 
and not in the thing itself. I never believed before 
that Abraham Lincoln would be guilty of what he 
has done this day in regard to those resolutions. In 
the first place, the moment it was intimated to me 
that they had been adopted at Aurora and Rockford 
instead of Springfield, I did not wait for him to call 
my attention to the fact, but led off, and explained 
in my first meeting after the Ottawa debate what the 
mistake was, and how it had been made. I sup- 
posed that for an honest man, conscious of his own 
rectitude, that explanation would be sufficient. I 
did not wait for him, after the mistake was made, to 
call my attention to it, but frankly explained it at 
once as an honest man would. I also gave the 
authority on which I had stated that these resolu- 
tions were adopted by the Springfield Republican 
Convention; that I had seen them quoted by Major 
Harris in a debate in Congress, as having been 
adopted by the first Republican State Convention in 
Illinois, and that I had written to him and asked 
him for the authority as to the time and place of 
their adoption; that. Major Harris being extremely 
ill, Charles H. Lanphier had written to me, for him, 
that they were adopted at Springfield on the 5 th of 
October, 1854, and had sent me a copy of the Spring- 
field paper containing them. I read them from the 



Stephen A. Douglas 145 

newspaper just as Mr. Lincoln reads the proceedings 
of meetings held years ago from the newspapers. 
After giving that explanation, 1 did not think there 
was an honest man in the State of Illinois who 
doubted that I had been led into the error, if it was 
such, innocently, in the way I detailed; and I will 
now say that I do not now believe that there is an 
honest man on the face of the globe who will not 
regard with abhorrence and disgust Mr. Lincoln's 
insinuations of my complicity in that forgery, if it 
was a forgery. Does Mr. Lincoln wish to push these 
things to the point of personal difficulties here? I 
commenced this contest by treating him courteously 
and kindly; I always spoke of him in words of 
respect; and in return he has sought and is now 
seeking to divert public attention from the enor- 
mity of his revolutionary principles by impeaching 
men's sincerity and integrity, and inviting personal 
quarrels. 

I desired to conduct this contest with him like a 
gentleman; but I spurn the insinuation of complicity 
and fraud made upon the simple circumstance of an 
editor of a newspaper having made a mistake as to 
the place where a thing was done, but not as to the 
thing itself. These resolutions were the platform of 
this Republican party of Mr. Lincoln's of that year. 
They were adopted in a majority of the Republican 
counties in the State; and when I asked him at 
Ottawa whether they formed the platform upon 
which he stood, he did not answer, and I could not 
get an answer out of him. He then thought, as I 
thought, that those resolutions were adopted at the 



H^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Springfield Convention, but excused himself by say- 
ing that he was not there when they were adopted, 
but had gone to Tazewell court in order to avoid 
being present at the Convention. He saw them pub- 
lished as having been adopted at Springfield, and so 
did I, and he knew that if there was a mistake in 
regard to them, that I had nothing under heaven to 
do with it. Besides, you find that in all these 
northern counties where the Republican candidates 
are running pledged to him, that the conventions 
which nominated them adopted that identical plat- 
form. One cardinal point in that platform which 
he shrinks from is this: that there shall be no more 
slave States admitted into the Union, even if the 
people want them. Love joy stands pledged against 
the admission of any more slave States. ["Right, 
so do we."] So do you, you say. Farnsworth 
stands pledged against the admission of any more 
slave States. Washbume stands pledged the same 
way. The candidate for the Legislature who is 
running on Lincoln's ticket in Henderson and 
Warren stands committed by his vote in the Legis- 
lature to the same thing; and I am informed, but do 
not know of the fact, that your candidate here is 
also so pledged. ["Hurrah for him! Good! "] Now, 
you Republicans all hurrah for him, and for the 
doctrine of "no more slave States," and yet Lincoln 
tells you that his conscience will not permit him to 
sanction that doctrine, and complains because the 
resolutions I read at Ottawa made him, as a member 
of the party, responsible for sanctioning the doctrine 
of no more slave States. You are one way, you 



Stephen A. Douglas i47 

confess, and he is, or pretends to be, the other; and 
yet you are both governed by principle in supporting 
one another. If it be true, as I have shown it is, 
that the whole Republican party in the northern 
part of the State stands committed to the doctrine 
of no more slave States, and that this same doctrine 
is repudiated by the Republicans in the other part of 
the State, I wonder whether Mr. Lincoln and his 
party do not present the case which he cited from the 
Scriptures, of a house divided against itself which 
cannot stand! I desire to know what are Mr, 
Lincoln's principles and the principles of his party. 
I hold, and the party with which I am identified hold, 
that the people of each State, old and new, have the 
right to decide the slavery question for themselves; 
and when I used the remark that I did not care 
whether slavery was voted up or down, I used it in 
the connection that I was for allowing Kansas to do 
just as she pleased on the slavery question. I said 
that I did not care whether they voted slavery up or 
down, because they had the right to do as they 
pleased on the question, and therefore my action 
would not be controlled by an}^ such consideration. 
Why cannot Abraham Lincoln, and the party with 
which he acts, speak out their principles so that they 
may be understood? Why do they claim to be one 
thing in one part of the State, and another in the 
other part? Whenever I allude to the Abolition 
doctrines, which he considers a slander to be charged 
with being in favor of, you all indorse them, and 
hurrah for them, not knowing that your candidate is 
ashamed to acknowledge them. 



148 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

I have a few words to say upon the Dred Scott 
decision, which has troubled the brain of Mr, Lincoln 
so much. He insists that that decision would carry 
slavery into the free States, notwithstanding that 
the decision says directly the opposite, and goes into 
a long argument to make you believe that I am in 
favor of, and would sanction, the doctrine that would 
allow slaves to be brought here and held as slaves 
contrary to our Constitution and laws. Mr. Lincoln 
knew better when he asserted this ; he knew that one 
newspaper, and, so far as is within my knowledge, 
but one, ever asserted that doctrine, and that I was 
the first man in either House of Congress that read 
that article in debate, and denounced it on the floor 
of the Senate as revolutionary. When the Wash- 
ington Union, on the 17th of last November, pub- 
lished an article to that effect, I branded it at once, 
and denounced it; and hence the Union has been 
pursuing me ever since. Mr. Toombs, of Georgia, 
replied to me, and said that there was not a man in 
any of the slave States south of the Potomac River 
that held any such doctrine. Mr. Lincoln knows 
that there is not a member of the Supreme Court 
who holds that doctrine ; he knows that every one of 
them, as shown by their opinions, holds the reverse. 
Why this attempt, then, to bring the Supreme Court 
into disrepute among the people ? It looks as if there 
was an effort being made to destroy public confidence 
in the highest judicial tribunal on earth. Suppose 
he succeeds in destroying public confidence in the 
court, so that the people will not respect its decisions, 
but will feel at liberty to disregard them and resist 



Stephen A. Douglas 149 

the laws of the land, what will he have gained? He 
will have changed the government from one of laws 
into that of a mob, in which the strong arm of vio- 
lence will be substituted for the decisions of the courts 
of justice. He complains because I did not go into 
an argument reviewing Chief Justice Taney's opinion, 
and the other opinions of the different judges, to 
determine whether their reasoning is right or wrong 
on the questions of law. What use would that be? 
He wants to take an appeal from the Supreme Court 
to this meeting, to determine whether the questions 
of law were decided properly. He is going to appeal 
from the Supreme Court of the United States to every 
town meeting, in the hope that he can excite a pre- 
judice against that court, and on the wave of that 
])rejudice ride into the ^Senate of the United States, 
when he could not get there on his own principles or 
his own merits. Suppose he should succeed in getting 
into the Senate of the United States, what then will 
he have to do with the decision of the Supreme Court 
in the Dred Scott case? Can he reverse that deci- 
sion when he gets there ? Can he act upon it ? Has 
the Senate any right to reverse it or revise it? He 
will not pretend that it has. Then why drag the 
matter into this contest, unless for the purpose of 
making a false issue, by which he can direct public 
attention from the real issue. 

He has cited General Jackson in justification of the 
war he is making on the decision of the court. Mr. 
Lincoln misunderstands the history of the country if 
he believes there is any parallel in the two cases. It 
is true that the Supreme Court once decided that if 



150 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

a Bank of the United States was a necessary fiscal 
agent of the government, it was constitutional, and if 
not, that it was unconstitutional, and also, that 
whether or not it was necessary for that purpose 
was a political question for Congress, and not a 
judicial one for the courts to determine. Hence the 
court would not determine the bank unconstitu- 
tional. Jackson respected the decision, obeyed the 
law, executed it, and carried it into effect during its 
existence; but after the charter of the bank expired, 
and a proposition was made to create a new bank, 
General Jackson said, "It is unnecessary and im- 
proper, and therefore I am against it on constitu- 
tional grounds as well as those of expediency." Is 
Congress bound to pass every act that is constitu- 
tional? Why, there are a thousand things that are 
constitutional, but yet are inexpedient and unneces- 
sary, and you surely would not vote for them merely 
because you had the right to ? And because General 
Jackson would not do a thing which he had a right to 
do, but did not deem expedient or proper, Mr. 
Lincoln is going to justify himself in doing that 
which he has no right to do. I ask him whether he 
is not bound to respect and obey the decisions of the 
Supreme Court as well as I? The Constitution has 
created that court to decide all constitutional ques- 
tions in the last resort ; and when such decisions have 
been made, they become the law of the land, and 
you, and he, and myself, and every other good 
citizen, are bound by them. Yet he argues that I 
am bound by their decisions, and he is not. He 
says that their decisions are binding on Democrats, 



Stephen A. Douglas 151 

but not on Republicans. Are not Republicans 
bound by the laws of the land as well as Democrats ? 
And when the court has fixed the construction of the 
Constitution on the validity of a given law, is not 
their decision binding upon Republicans as well as 
upon Democrats? Is it possible that you Repub- 
licans have the right to raise your mobs and oppose 
the laws of the land and the constituted authorities, 
and yet hold us Democrats bound to obey them? 
My time is within half a minute of expiring, and all I 
have to say is, that I stand by the laws of the land. 
I stand by the Constitution as our fathers made it, 
by the laws as they are enacted, and by the decisions 
of the court, upon all points within their jurisdiction, 
as they are pronounced by the highest tribunal on 
earth ; and any man who resists these must resort to 
mob law and violence to overtiim the government 
of laws. 



SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, 
October 13, 1858. 

MR. Lincoln's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: I have had no immedi- 
ate conference with Judge Douglas, but I will venture 
to say that he and I will perfectly agree that your 
entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, 
will be most agreeable to us. 

In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the 
State of Illinois which have since been consolidated 
into the Republican party assembled together in a 
State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted 
at that time what, in political language, is called a 
platform. In June of the same year the elements of 
the Republican party in the nation assembled to- 
gether in a National Convention at Philadelphia. 
They adopted what is called the National Platform. 
In June, 1858, — the present year, — the Republicans 
of Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Con- 
vention, and adopted again their platform, as I sup- 
pose not differing in any essential particular from 
either of the former ones, but perhaps adding some- 
thing in relation to the new developments of political 
progress in the country. 

The Convention that assembled in June last did 
me the honor, if it be one, and I esteem it such, to 
nominate me as their candidate for the United States 

152 



Abraham Lincoln 153 

Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this 
canvass, I stood generally upon these platforms. 
We are now met together on the 13 th of October of 
the same year, only four months from the adoption 
of the last platform, and I am unaware that in this 
canvass, from the beginning until to-day, any one of 
our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, or 
laid his finger upon anything that he calls wrong in 
them. 

In the very first one of these joint discussions be- 
tween Senator Douglas and myself. Senator Douglas, 
without alluding at all to these platforms, or any one 
of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold 
me responsible for a set of resolutions passed long 
before the meeting of either one of these conventions 
of which I have spoken. And as a ground for hold- 
ing me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed 
that they had been passed at a State Convention of 
the Republican party, and that I took part in that 
Convention. It was discovered aftenvard that this 
was erroneous, that the resolutions which he en- 
deavored to hold me responsible for had not been 
passed by any State Convention anywhere, had not 
been passed at Springfield, where he supposed they 
had, or assumed that they had, and that they had 
been passed in no convention in which I had taken 
part. The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to 
give up the point that he was endeavoring to make 
upon me, and he therefore thought to still hold me 
to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by 
showing that the resolutions that he read had been 
passed at a local convention in the northern part of 



154 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the State, although it was not a local convention 
that embraced my residence at all, nor one that 
reached, as I suppose, nearer than one hundred and 
fifty or two hundred miles of where I was when it met, 
nor one in which I took any part at all. He also 
introduced other resolutions, passed at other meet- 
ings, and by combining the whole, although they 
were all antecedent to the two State Conventions 
and the one National Convention I have mentioned, 
still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, 
that I am in some way responsible for them. 

At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to 
the Judge that I was in no way rightfully held 
responsible for the proceedings of this local meeting 
or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in 
which I was in no way embraced; but I insisted to 
him that if he thought I was responsible for every 
man or every set of men everywhere, who happen to be 
my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he 
ought to be responsible for the acts and resolutions of 
all men or sets of men who were or are now his sup- 
porters and friends, and gave him a pretty long string 
of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, 
and announcing doctrines for which he does not de- 
sire to be held responsible. 

This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas. He still 
adheres to his proposition, that I am responsible for 
what some of my friends in different parts of the 
State have done, but that he is not responsible for 
what his have done. At least, so I understand him. 
But in addition to that, the Judge, at our meeting in 
Galesburgh, last week, undertakes to establish that 



Abraham Lincoln 155 

I am guilty of a species of double dealing with the 
public ; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the 
north, among the Abolitionists, which I would not 
mak(3 in the south, and that I make speeches of a 
certain sort in the south which I would not make 
in the north. I apprehend, in the course I have 
marked out for myself, that I shall not have to 
dwell at very great length upon this subject. 

As this was done in the Jiidge's opening speech at 
Galesburgh, I had an opportunity, as I had the 
middle speech then, of saying something in answer 
to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from 
a speech of mine delivered at Chicago, and then, to 
contrast with it, he brought forward an extract from 
a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted 
that I was greatly inconsistent, and insisted that 
his conclusion followed, that I was playing a double 
part, and speaking in one region one way, and in 
another region another way. I have not time now 
to dwell on this as long as I would like, and wish only 
now to requote that portion of my speech at Charles- 
ton which the Judge quoted, and then make some 
comments upon it. This he quotes from me as 
being delivered at Charleston, and I believe correctly : 

" I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, 
in favor of bringing about in any way the social and 
political equality of the white and black races; that I 
am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or 
jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, 
nor to intermarry w4th white people; and I will say, in 
addition to this, that there is a physical difference be- 
tween the white and black races which will forever forbid 



156 Lincoln and Douo^las Debates 



the two races living together on terms of social and 
political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so 
live while they do remain together, there must be the 
position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any 
other man in favor of having the superior position as- 
signed to the white race." 

This, I believe, is the entire quotation from the 
Charleston speech, as Judge Douglas made it. His 
comments are as follows : 

" Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and 
say he is right when he discards all distinction between 
races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine 
that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race; 
and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for 
Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, 
holding that in the Declaration of Independence the 
white man and negro were declared equal, and endowed 
by divine law with equality. And down South, with 
the old-line Whigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians, 
and the Tennesseeans, he tells you that there is a physi- 
cal difference between the races, making the one superior, 
the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining the 
superiority of the white race over the negro." 

Those are the Judges comments. Now, I wish to 
show you that a month, or only lacking three days of 
a month, before I made the speech at Charleston, 
which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard 
me say substantiall}^ the same thing. It was in our 
first meeting, at Ottawa — and I will say a word about 
where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after 
a while — ^but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read 



Abraham Lincoln 157 

an extract from an old speech of mine, made nearly 
four years ago, not merely to show my sentiments, but 
to show that my sentiments were long entertained and 
openly expressed; in which extract I expressly de- 
clared that my own feelings would not admit a social 
and political equality between the white and black 
races, and that even if my own feelings would admit 
of it, I still knew that the public sentiment of the 
country would not, and that such a thing was an 
utter impossibility, or substantially that. That 
extract from my old speech the reporters by some 
sort of accident passed over, and it was not reported. 
I lay no blame upon anybody. I suppose they 
thought that I would hand it over to them, and 
dropped reporting while I was reading it, but after- 
ward went away without getting it from me. At 
the end of that quotation from my old speech, which 
I read at Ottawa, I made the comments which were 
reported at that time, and which I will now read, and 
ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same 
as Judge Douglas says were delivered by me down 
in Egypt. After reading, I added these words: 

" Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great 
length ; but this is the true complexion of all I have ever 
said in regard to the institution of slavery or the black 
race, and this is the whole of it : anything that argues 
me into his idea of perfect social and political equality 
with the negro, is but a specious and fantastical ar- 
rangement of words by which a man can prove a horse- 
chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while 
upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or 
indirectlv, to interfere with the institution in the States 



i^ 



158 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so. I 
have no incHnation to do so. I have no purpose to 
introduce political and social equality between the white 
and black races. There is a physical difference between 
the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever 
forbid their living together on the footing of perfect 
equality; and inasmiuch as it becomes a necessity that 
there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, 
am in favor of the race to which I belong having the 
superior position. I have never said anything to the 
contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there 
is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled 
to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, — the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 
happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these 
as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he 
is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color, 
perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but 
in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of any- 
body else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and 
the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other 
man." 

I have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of 
meeting the Judge's charge that the quotation he 
took from my Charleston speech was what I would 
say down South among the Kentuckians, the Vir- 
ginians, etc., but would not say in the regions in 
which was supposed to be more of the Abolition 
element. I now make this comment: That speech 
from which I have now read the quotation, and 
which is there given correctly — perhaps too much 
so for good taste— was made away up North in the 
Abolition District of this State par excellence, in the 



Abraham Lincoln 159 

Lovejoy District, in the personal presence of Love- 
joy, for he was on the stand with us when I made 
it. It had been made and put in print in that region 
only three days less than a month before the speech 
made at Charleston, the like of which Judge Douglas 
thinks I would not make where there was any Aboli- 
tion element. I only refer to this matter to say that 
I am altogether unconscious of having attempted 
any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occa- 
sion I may say one thing, and leave other things 
unsaid, and vice versa, but that I have said any- 
thing on one occasion that is inconsistent with what 
I have said elsewhere, I deny, — at least I deny it so 
far as the intention is concerned. I find that I have 
devoted to this topic a larger portion of my time 
than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will 
pass it upon this occasion, that in the sentiment I 
have occasionally advanced upon the Declaration of 
Independence I am entirely borne out by the senti- 
ments advanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, 
and I have the book here to show it from; but 
because I have already occupied more time than I 
intended to do on that topic, I pass over it. 

At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred 
Scott decision, pushed to its legitimate consequences, 
slavery would be established in all the States as well 
as in the Territories. I did this because, upon a 
former occasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, 
if the Supreme Court should make a decision declar- 
ing that the States had not the power to exclude 
slavery from their limits, he would adopt and fol- 
low that decision as a rule of political action; and 



i6o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

because he had not directly answered that question, 
but had merely contented himself with sneering at it, 
I again introduced it, and tried to show that the con- 
clusion that I stated followed inevitably and logically 
from the proposition already decided by the court. 
Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me 
at Galesburgh, and again he gave me no direct 
answer as to whether he would or would not sustain 
such a decision if made. I give him his third chance 
to say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, — 
probably he will not do either; but I give him the 
third chance. I tried to show then that this result, 
this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point al- 
ready decided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, 
again sneers at the thought of the court making any 
such decision, and in the course of his remarks upon 
this subject uses the language which I will now read. 
Speaking of me, the Judge says: "He goes on and 
insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry 
slavery into the free States, notwithstanding the 
decision itself says the contrary." And he adds: 
"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the 
Supreme Court that holds that doctrine. He knows 
that every one of them in their opinions held the 
reverse." 

I especially introduce this subject again for the pur- 
pose of saying that I have the Dred Scott decision 
here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to lay his finger 
upon the place in the entire opinions of the court 
where any one of them "says the contrary." It is 
very hard to affirm a negative with entire confidence. 
I sav, however, that I have examined that decision 



Abraham Lincoln i6i 

with a good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a 
decision, and, so far as I have been able to do so, 
the court has nowhere in its opinions said that the 
States have the power to exclude slavery, nor have 
they used other language substantially that. I also 
say, so far as I can find, not one of the concurring 
judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, 
nor said anything that was substantially that. The 
nearest approach that any one of them has made to 
it, so far as I can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the 
approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the 
Nebraska Bill, — -that the States had the exclusive 
power over the question of slavery, so far as they are 
not limited by the Constitution of the United States. 
I asked the question, therefore, if the non-concurring 
judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an ex- 
press declaration that the States could absolutely 
exclude slavery from their limits, what reason have 
we to believe that it would not have been voted 
down by the majority of the judges, just as Chase's 
amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and 
his compeers when it was offered to the Nebraska 
Bill. 

Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to 
those Springfield resolutions that Judge Douglas had 
attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, and com- 
mented at some length upon the fact that they were, 
as presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in his 
reply to me seemed to be somewhat exasperated. 
He said he would never have believed that Abraham 
Lincoln, as he kindly called me, would have at- 
tempted such a thing as I had attempted upon that 



i62 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

occasion; and among other expressions which he 
used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, — 
that I had dared to say forgery [turning to Judge 
Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say forgery. 
But in this political canvass the Judge ought to 
remember that I was not the first who dared to say 
forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a 
speech in answer to something said by Judge Trum- 
bull, and at the close of what he said upon that sub- 
ject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged his 
evidence. He said, too, that he should not concern 
himself with Trumbull any more, but thereafter he 
should hold Lincoln responsible for the slanders upon 
him. When I met him at Charleston after that, 
although I think that I should not have noticed the 
subject if he had not said he would hold me responsi- 
ble for it, I spread out before him the statements of 
the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I 
asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger 
upon one piece of all that evidence that he would say 
was a forgery! When I went through with each 
and every piece. Judge Douglas did not dare then to 
say that any piece of it was a forgery. So it seems 
that there are some things that Judge Douglas dares 
to do, and some that he dares not to do. 

A voice: It 's the same thing with you. 

Mr. Lincoln : Yes, sir, it 's the same thing with 
me. I do dare to say forgery when it 's true, and 
don't dare to say forgery when it 's false. Now I 
will say here to this audience and to Judge Douglas 
I have not dared to say he committed a forgery, and 
I never shall until I know it ; but I did dare to say — 



Abraham Lincoln 163 

just to suggest to the Judge— that a forgery had been 
committed, which by his own showing had been 
traced to him and two of his friends. I dared to 
suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one 
of his public speeches to investigate that matter, and 
I dared to suggest to him that there was an implied 
promise that when he investigated it he would make 
known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge 
that he could not expect to be quite clear of suspicion 
of that fraud, for since the time that promise was 
made he had been with those friends, and had not 
kept his promise in regard to the investigation and 
the report upon it. I am not a very daring man, but 
I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scared 
about it yet. When the Judge says he would n't 
have believed of Abraham Lincoln that he would 
have made such an attempt as that he reminds me 
of the fact that he entered upon this canvass with the 
purpose to treat me courteously; that touched me 
somewhat. It sets me to thinking. I was aware, 
when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and 
I were to have these seven joint discussions, that 
they were the successive acts of a drama, perhaps I 
should say, to be enacted, not merely in the face of 
audiences hke this, but in the face of the nation, and 
to some extent, by my relation to him, and not from 
anything in myself, in the face of the world; and I 
am anxious that they should be conducted with 
dignity and in the good temper which would be 
befitting the vast audiences before which it was con- 
ducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from 
Washington and made his first speech in Chicago, 



1 64 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the evening afterward I made some sort of a reply to 
it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in 
which he commented upon my speech at Chicago 
and said that I had used language ingeniously con- 
trived to conceal my intentions, — or words to that 
effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation 
upon my veracity and my candor. I do not know 
what the Judge understood by it, but in our first dis- 
cussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a bargain, 
somewhat corrupt in its character, upon Trumbull 
and myself, ^that we had entered into a bargain, 
one of the terms of which was that Trumbull was 
to Abolitionize the old Democratic party, and I 
(Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whig party; I 
pretending to be as good an old-line Whig as ever. 
Judge Douglas may not understand that he impli- 
cated my truthfulness and my honor when he said 
I was doing one thing and pretending another; and 
I misunderstood him if he thought he was treating 
me in a dignified way, as a man of honor and truth, 
as he now claims he was disposed to treat me. 
Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings 
forward an extract from a speech made at Chicago 
and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, 
to prove that I was trying to play a double part, — 
that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes 
upon one set of principles at one place, and upon 
another set of principles at another place, — I do not 
understand but what he impeaches my honor, my 
veracity, and my candor; and because he does this, I 
do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truth- 
ful ground for it, to keep my hands off of him. As 



Abraham Lincoln 165 

soon as I learned that Judge Douglas was disposed to 
treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches 
that I should be driven to draw upon whatever of 
humble resources I might have, — to adopt a new 
course with him. I was not entirely sure that I 
should be able to hold my own with him, but I at 
least had the purpose made to do as well as I could 
upon him ; and now I say that I will not be the first 
to cry "Hold." I think it originated with the Judge, 
and when he quits, I probably will. But I shall not 
ask any favors at all. He asks me, or he asks the 
audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point of 
personal difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make 
a mistake, in one of his early speeches, when he 
called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps he did 
when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really 
hurts me very much to suppose that I have wronged 
anybody on earth. I again tell him, no! I very 
much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, how- 
ever it may result, that we at least part without any 
bitter recollections of personal difficulties. 

The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, 
says that I was pushing this matter to a personal 
difficulty, to avoid the responsibility for the enormity 
of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audi- 
ence, now, that I will again state our principles, as 
well as I hastily can, in all their enormity, and if the 
Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself to a war 
upon these principles, he will probably not find me 
departing from the same course. 

We have in this nation this element of domestic 
slavery. It is a matter of absolute certainty that it 



1 66 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

is a disturbing element. It is the opinion of all the 
great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, 
that it is a dangerous element. We keep up a con- 
troversy in regard to it. That controversy neces- 
sarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we 
can learn exactly — can reduce to the lowest elements 
— what that difference of opinion is, we perhaps shall 
be better prepared for discussing the different sys- 
tems of policy that we would propose in regard to 
that disturbing element. I suggest that the differ- 
ence of opinion, reduced to its lowest of terms, is no 
other than the difference between the men who 
think slavery a wrong and those who do not think 
it wrong. The Republican party think it wrong; 
we think it is a moral, a social, and a political wrong. 
We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to 
the persons or the States where it exists, but that 
it is a wrong in its tendency, to say the least, that 
extends itseff to the existence of the whole nation. 
Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of 
policy that shall deal with it as a wrong. We deal 
with it as with any other wrong, in so far as we can 
prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it 
that in the run of time there may be some promise of 
an end to it. We have a due regard to the actual 
presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of 
getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the 
constitutional obligations thrown about it. I sup- 
pose that in reference both to its actual existence in 
the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we 
have no right at all to disturb it in the States where it 
exists, and we profess that we have no more inclina- 



Abraham Lincoln 167 

tion to disturb it than we have the right to do it. We 
go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it 
where, in one instance, we think the Constitution 
would permit us. We think the Constitution would 
permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia. 
Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be 
in terms which I don't suppose the nation is very 
likely soon to agree to, — the terms of making the 
emancipation gradual, and compensating the un- 
willing owners. Where we suppose we have the con- 
stitutional right, we restrain ourselves in reference to 
the actual existence of the institution and the diffi- 
culties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an 
evil so far as it seeks to spread itself. We insist on 
the policy that shall restrict it to its present limits. 
We don't suppose that in doing this we violate any- 
thing due to the actual presence of the institution, 
or anything due to the constitutional guaranties 
thrown around it. 

We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain 
way, upon which I ought perhaps to address you a 
few words. We do not propose that when Dred 
Scott has been decided to be a slave by the court, we, 
as a mob, will decide him to be free. We do not pro- 
pose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall 
be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any 
violent way disturb the rights of property thus set- 
tled ; but we nevertheless do oppose that decision as 
a political rule which shall be binding on the voter 
to vote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall 
be binding on the members of Congress or the 
President to favor no measure that does not actually 



1 68 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

concur with the principles of that decision. We do not 
propose to be bound by it as a political rule in that 
way, because we think it lays the foundation, not 
merely of enlarging and spreading out what we con- 
sider an evil, but it lays the foundation for spreading 
that evil into the States themselves. We propose so 
resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new 
judicial rule established upon this subject. 

I will add this : that if there be any man who does 
not believe that slavery is wrong in the three aspects 
which I have mentioned, or in any one of them, 
that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; 
while on the other hand, if there be any man in the 
Republican party who is impatient over the necessity 
springing from its actual presence, and is impatient 
of the constitutional guaranties thrown around it, 
and would act in disregard of these, he too is mis- 
placed, standing with us. He will find his place 
somewhere else ; for we have a due regard, so far as 
we are capable of understanding them, for all these 
things. This, gentlemen, as well as I can give it, 
is a plain statement of our principles in all their 
enormity. 

I will say now that there is a sentiment in the 
country contrary to me, — a sentiment which holds 
that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes for 
the policy that does not propose dealing with it as a 
wrong. That policy is the Democratic policy, and 
that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. If 
there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast 
audience that this is really the central idea of the 
Democratic party in relation to this subject, I ask 



Abraham Lincoln 169 

him to bear with me while I state a few things tend- 
ing, as I think, to prove that proposition. In the 
first place, the leading man — I think I may do my 
friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him such — 
advocating the present Democratic policy never him- 
self says it is wrong. He has the high distinction, 
so far as I know, of never having said slavery is either 
right or wrong. Almost everybody else says one or 
the other, but the Judge never does. If there be a 
man in the Democratic party who thinks it is wrong, 
and yet clings to that party, I suggest to him, in the 
first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, for 
he never says that it is wrong. In the second place, 
I suggest to him that if he will examine the policy 
proposed to be carried forward, he will find that he 
carefully excludes the idea that there is anything 
v\Tong in it. If you will examine the arguments 
that are made on it, you will find that every one 
carefully excludes the idea that there is an^^hing 
wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Democrat who 
says he is as much opposed to slavery as I am will 
tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish him to 
examine his own course in regard to this matter a 
moment, and then see if his opinion will not be 
changed a little. You say it is wrong; but don't 
you constantly object to anybody else saying so? 
Do you not constantly argue that this is not the 
right place to oppose it? You sa}^ it must not be 
opposed in the free States, because slavery is not 
here; it must not be opposed in the slave States, 
because it is there; it must not be opposed in 
politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not 



170 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. 
Then where is the place to oppose it? There is no 
suitable place to oppose it. There is no place in the 
country to oppose this evil overspreading the con- 
tinent, which you say yourself is coming. Frank 
Blair and Gratz Brown tried to get up a system of 
gradual emancipation in Missouri, had an election 
in August, and got beat, and you, Mr. Democrat, 
threw up your hat, and hallooed "Hurrah for 
Democracy!" So I say, again, that in regard to the 
arguments that are made, when Judge Douglas says 
he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted 
down," whether he means that as an individual 
expression of sentiment, or only as a sort of state- 
ment of his views on national policy, it is alike true 
to say that he can thus argue logically if he don't 
see anything wrong in it; but he cannot say so 
logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. He 
cannot say that he would as soon see a wTong voted 
up as voted down. When Judge Douglas says that 
whoever or whatever community wants slaves, the}^ 
have a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if 
there is nothing wrong in the institution ; but if 3^ou 
admit that it is wrong, he cannot logically say that 
anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says 
that slave property and horse and hog property are 
alike to be allowed to go into the Territories, upon 
the principles of equality, he is reasoning truly, if 
there is no difference between them as property ; but 
if the one is property held rightfully, and the other is 
wrong, then there is no equality between the right 
and wrong; so that, turn it in any way you can, in all 



Stephen A. Douglas 171 

the arguments sustaining the Democratic pohcy, 
and in that poHcy itself, there is a careful, studied 
exclusion of the idea that there is anything wrong in 
slavery. Let us understand this. I am not, just 
here, trying to prove that we are right, and they are 
wrong. I have been stating where we and they 
stand, and trying to show what is the real differ- 
ence between us; and I now say that whenever we 
can get the question distinctly stated, can get all 
these men who believe that slavery is in some of 
these respects wrong to stand and act with us in 
treating it as a wrong, — then, and not till then, I 
think we will in some way come to an end of this 
slavery agitation. 



MR. DOUGLAS S REPLY. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: Permit me to sa}^ that 
unless silence is observed it will be impossible for me 
to be heard by this immense crowd, and my friends 
can confer no higher favor upon me than by omitting 
all expressions of applause or approbation. I desire 
to be heard rather than to be applauded. I wish to 
address myself to your reason, your judgment, your 
sense of justice, and not to your passions. 

I regret that Mr. Lincoln should have deemed it 
proper for him again to indulge in gross personalities 
and base insinuations in regard to the Springfield 
resolutions. It has imposed upon me the necessity 
of using some portion of my time for the purpose of 
calling your attention to the facts of the case, and it 
will then be for you to say what you think of a man 



172 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

who can predicate such a charge upon the circum- 
stances as he has in this. I had seen the platform 
adopted by a Republican Congressional Convention 
held in Aurora, the Second Congressional District, 
in September, 1854, published as purporting to be 
the platform of the Republican party. That plat- 
form declared that the Republican party was pledged 
never to admit another slave State into the Union, 
and also that it was pledged to prohibit slavery in all 
the Territories of the United States, not only all that 
we then had, but all that we should thereafter ac- 
quire, and to repeal unconditionally the Fugitive 
Slave law, abolish slaver}^ in the District of Columbia, 
and prohibit the slave-trade between the different 
States. These and other articles against slavery 
were contained in this platform, and unanimously 
adopted by the Republican Congressional Conven- 
tion in that district. I had also seen that the 
Republican Congressional Conventions at Rockford, 
in the First District, and at Bloomington, in the 
Third, had adopted the same platform that year, 
nearly word for word, and had declared it to be the 
platform of the Republican party. I had noticed 
that Major Thomas L. Harris, a member of Con- 
gress from the Springfield District, had referred to 
that platform in a speech in Congress as having been 
adopted by the first Republican State Convention 
which assembled in Illinois. When I had occasion 
to use the fact in this canvass, I wrote to Major 
Harris to know on what day that Convention was 
held, and to ask him to send me its proceedings. 
He being sick, Charles H. Lanphier answered my 



Stephen A. Douglas 173 

letter by sending me the pubhshed proceedings of 
the Convention held at Springfield on the 5 th of 
October, 1854, as they appeared in the report of the 
State Register. I read those resolutions from that 
newspaper the same as any of you would refer back 
and quote any fact from the files of a newspaper 
which had published it. Mr. Lincoln pretends that 
after I had so quoted those resolutions he discov- 
ered that they had never been adopted at Spring- 
field. He does not deny their adoption by the Re- 
publican party at Aurora, at Bloomington, and at 
Rockford. and by nearly all the Republican County 
Conventions in northern Illinois where his party is 
in a majority, but merely because they were not 
adopted on the "spot" on which I said they were, he 
chooses to quibble about the place rather than meet 
and discuss the merits of the resolutions themselves. 
I stated when I quoted them that I did so from the 
State Register. I gave my authority. Lincoln be- 
lieved at the time, as he has since admitted, that 
they had been adopted at Springfield, as published. 
Does he believe now that I did not tell the truth 
when I quoted those resolutions? He knows, in his 
heart, that I quoted them in good faith, believing 
at the time that they had been adopted at Spring- 
field. I would consider myself an infamous wretch, 
if, under such circumstances, I could charge any man 
with being a party to a trick or a fraud. And I will 
tell him, too, that it will not do to charge a forgery 
on Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. No 
man an earth, who knows them, and knows Lincoln, 
would take his oath ag^ainst their word. There are 



174 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

not two men in the State of Illinois who have higher 
characters for truth, for integrity, for moral character 
and for elevation of tone, as gentlemen, than Mr. 
Lanphier and Mr. Harris. Any man who attempts 
to make such charges as Mr. Lincoln has indulged in 
against them, only proclaims himself a slanderer. 

I will now show you that I stated with entire 
fairness, as soon as it was made known to me, that 
there was a mistake about the spot where the resolu- 
tions had been adopted, although their truthfulness, 
as a declaration of the principles of the Republican 
party, had not and could not be questioned. I did 
not wait for Lincoln to point out the mistake, but 
the moment I discovered it, I made a speech, and 
published it to the world, correcting the error. I 
corrected it myself, as a gentleman and an honest 
man, and as I always feel proud to do when I have 
made a mistake. I wish Mr. Lincoln could show 
that he has acted with equal fairness and truthfulness 
when I have convinced him that he has been mis- 
taken. I will give you an illustration to show you 
how he acts in a similar case : In a speech at Spring- 
field, he charged Chief Justice Taney and his asso- 
ciates. President Pierce, President Buchanan, and 
myself, with having entered into a conspiracy at the 
time the Nebraska Bill was introduced, by which the 
Dred Scott decision was to be made by the Supreme 
Court, in order to carry slavery everywhere under 
the Constitution. I called his attention to the fact 
that at the time alluded to, to wit, the introduction 
of the Nebraska Bill, it was not possible that such a 
conspiracy could have been entered into, for the 



I 



Stephen A. Douglas 175 

reason that the Dred Scott case had never been 
taken before the Supreme Court, and was not taken 
before it for a year after; and I asked him to take 
back that charge. Did he do it? I showed him 
that it was impossible that the charge could be true ; 
I proved it by the record; and I then called upon 
him to retract his false charge. What was his 
answer ? Instead of coming out like an honest man 
and doing so, he reiterated the charge, and said that 
if the case had not gone up to the Supreme Court from 
the courts of Missouri at the time he charged that 
the judges of the Supreme Court entered into the 
conspiracy, yet, that there was an understanding 
with the Democratic owners of Dred Scott that they 
would take it up. I have since asked him who the 
Democratic owners of Dred Scott were, but he could 
not tell, and why? Because there were no such 
Democratic owners in existence. Dred Scott at the 
time was owned by the Rev. Dr. Chaffee, an Aboli- 
tion member of Congress, of Springfield, Massachu- 
setts, in right of his wife. He was owned by one of 
Lincoln's friends, and not by Democrats at all; his 
case was conducted in court by Abolition lawyers, so 
that both the prosecution and the defence were in 
the hands of the Abolition political friends of Mr. 
Lincoln. Notwithstanding I thus proved by the 
record that his charge against the Supreme Court 
was false, instead of taking it back, he resorted to 
another false charge to sustain the infamy of it. He 
also charged President Buchanan with having been 
a party to the conspiracy. I directed his attention 
to the fact that the charge could not possibly be 



176 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

true, for the reason that at the time specified, Mr. 
Buchanan was not in America, but was three thou- 
sand miles off, representing the United States at the 
Court of St. James, and had been there for a year 
previous, and did not return until three years after- 
ward. Yet I never could get Mr. Lincoln to take 
back his false charge, although I have called upon 
him over and over again. He refuses to do it, and 
either remains silent or resorts to other tricks to try 
and palm his slander off on the country. Therein 
you will find the difference between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself. When I make a mistake, as an honest man 
I correct it without being asked to do so; but when 
he makes a false charge, he sticks to it, and never 
corrects it. One word more in regard to these 
resolutions : I quoted them at Ottawa merely to ask 
Mr. Lincoln whether he stood on that platform. 
That was the purpose for which I quoted them. I 
did not think that I had a right to put idle questions 
to him, and I first laid a foundation for my questions 
by showing that the principles Vv^hich I wished him 
either to affirm or deny had been adopted by some 
portion of his friends, at least, as their creed. Hence 
I read the resolutions and put the questions to 
him, and he then refused to answer them. Subse- 
quently, one week afterward, he did answer a part of 
them, but the others he has not answered up to this 
day. 

Now, let me call your attention for a moment to 
the answers which Mr. Lincoln made at Freeport to 
the questions which I propounded to him at Ottawa, 
based upon the platform adopted by a majority of 



Stephen A. Douglas 177 

the Abolition counties of the State, which now, as 
then, supported him. In answer to my question 
whether he indorsed the Black Republican principle 
of "no more slave States," he answered that he was 
not pledged against the admission of any more slave 
States, but that he would be very sorry if he should 
ever be placed in a position where he would have to 
vote on the question; that he would rejoice to know 
that no more slave States would be admitted into 
the Union. 

" But [he added] if slavery shall be kept out of the 
Territories during the Territorial existence of any one 
given Temtory, and then the people shall, having a 
fair chance and a clear field when they come to adopt 
the constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to 
adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced by the actual 
presence of the institution among them, I see no alterna- 
tive, if we own the country, but to admit them into the 
Union." 

The point I wish him to answer is this: Suppose 
Congress should not prohibit slavery in the Territory, 
and it applied for admission with a constitution 
recognizing slavery, then how would he vote? His 
answer at Freeport does not apply to any territory 
in America. I ask you [turning to Lincoln], will you 
vote to admit Kansas into the Union, with just such 
a constitution as her people want, with slavery or 
without, as they shall determine? He will not 
answer. I have put that question to him time and 
time again, and have not been able to get an answer 
out of him. I ask you again, Lincoln, will you vote 



178 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

to admit New Mexico, when she has the requisite 
■population, with such a constitution as her people 
adopt, either recognizing slavery or not, as they shall 
determine? He will not answer. I put the same 
question to him in reference to Oregon and the new 
States to be carved out of Texas, in pursuance of 
the contract between Texas and the United States, 
and he will not answer. He will not answer these 
questions in reference to any Territory now in exist- 
ence, but says that if Congress should prohibit 
slavery in a Territory, and when its people asked 
for admission as a State they should adopt slavery 
as one of their institutions, that he supposes he 
would have to let it come in. I submit to you 
whether that answer of his to my question does not 
justify me in saying that he has a fertile genius in 
devising language to conceal his thoughts. I ask 
you whether there is an intelligent man in America 
who does not believe that that answer was made for 
the purpose of concealing what he intended to do. 
He wished to make the old-line Whigs believe that he 
would stand by the Compromise measures of 1850, 
which declared that the States might come into the 
Union with slavery, or without, as they pleased, 
while Lovejoy and his Abolition allies up north ex- 
plained to the Abolitionists that in taking this ground 
he preached good Abolition doctrine, because his 
proviso would not apply to any Territory in America, 
and therefore there was no chance of his being 
governed by it. It would have been quite easy for 
him to have said that he would let the people of a 
State do just as they pleased, if he desired to convey 



Stephen A. Douglas 179 

such an idea. Why did he not do it? He would 
not answer my question directly, because up north 
the AboHtion creed declares that there shall be no 
more slave States, while down south, in Adams 
County, in Coles, and in Sangamon, he and his friends 
are afraid to advance that doctrine. Therefore, he 
gives an evasive and equivocal answer, to be con- 
strued one way in the south and another way in the 
north, which, when analyzed, it is apparent is not an 
answer at all with reference to any territory now in 
existence. 

Mr. Lincoln complains that in my speech the other 
day at Galesburgh I read an extract from a speech 
delivered by him at Chicago, and then another from 
his speech at Charleston, and compared them, thus 
showing the people that he had one set of principles 
in one part of the State, and another in the other part. 
And how does he answer that charge? Why, he 
quotes from his Charleston speech as I quoted from 
it, and then quotes another extract from a speech 
which he made at another place, which he says is the 
same as the extract from his speech at Charleston; 
but he does not quote the extract from his Chicago 
speech, upon which I convicted him of double-deal- 
ing. I quoted from his Chicago speech to prove that 
he held one set of principles up north among the 
Abolitionists, and from his Charleston speech to 
prove that he held another set down at Charleston 
and in southern Illinois. In his answer to this 
charge, he ignores entirely his Chicago speech, and 
merely argues that he said the same thing which he 
said at Charleston at another place. If he did, it 



i8o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

follows that he has twice, instead of once, held one 
creed in one part of the State, and a different creed in 
another part. Up at Chicago, in the opening of the 
campaign, he reviewed my reception speech, and 
undertook to answer my argument attacking his 
favorite doctrine of negro equality, I had shown 
that it was a falsification of the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence to pretend that that instrument applied to 
and included negroes in the clause declaring that all 
men were created equal. What was Lincoln's reply? 
I will read from his Chicago speech and the one 
which he did not quote, and dare not quote, in this 
part of the State. He said: 

" I should like to know if, taking this old Doclaration 
of Independence, which declares that all men are equal 
upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will 
it stop ? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why 
may not another man say it does not mean another man? 
If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute 
book in which we find it, and tear it out." 

There you find that Mr. Lincoln told the Aboli- 
tionists of Chicago that if the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence did not declare that the negro was created 
b}^ the Almighty the equal of the white man, that 
you ought to take that instrument and tear out the 
clause which says that all men were created equal. 
But let me call your attention to another part of the 
same speech. You know that in his Charleston 
speech, an extract from which he has read, he de- 
clared that the negro belongs to an inferior race, is 
physically inferior to the white man, and should 



Stephen A. Douglas i8i 

always be kept in an inferior position. I will now 
read to you what he said at Chicago on that point. 
In concluding his speech at that place, he remarked : 

"My friends, I have detained you about as long as I 
desire to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all 
this quibbling about this man and the other man, this 
race, and that race, and the other race being inferior, 
and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position, 
discarding our standard that we have left us. Let us 
discard all these things, and unite as one people through- 
out this land until we shall once more stand up declaring 
that all men are created equal." 

Thus you see that when addressing the Chicago 
Abolitionists he declared that all distinctions of race 
must be discarded and blotted out, because the 
negro stood on an equal footing with the white man ; 
that if one man said the Declaration of Independence 
did not mean a negro when it declared all men 
created equal, that another man would say that it 
did not mean another man; and hence we ought to 
discard all differences between the negro race and all 
other races, and declare them all created equal. 
Did old Giddings, when he came down among you 
four years ago, preach more radical Abolitionism 
than this? Did Lovejoy, or Lloyd Garrison, or 
Wendell Phillips, or Fred Douglass ever take higher 
Abolition grounds than that ? Lincoln told you that 
I had charged him with getting up these personal 
attacks to conceal the enormity of his principles, 
and then commenced talking about something else, 
omitting to quote this part of his Chicago speech 



1 82 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

which contained the enormity of his principles to 
which I alluded. He knew that I alluded to his 
negro-equality doctrines when I spoke of the enor- 
mity of his principles, yet he did not find it conven- 
ient to answer on that point. Having shown you 
what he said in his Chicago speech in reference to 
negroes being created equal to white men, and about 
discarding all distinctions between the two races, I 
will again read to you what he said at Charleston : 

" I will say, then, that I am not nor ever have been in 
favor of bringing about in any way the social and politi- 
cal equality of the white and black races ; that I am not 
nor ever have been in favor of making voters of the free 
negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or 
having them to marry with white people. I will say in 
addition, that there is a physical difference between the 
white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever 
forbid the two races living together upon terms of social 
and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so 
live, that while they do remain together there must be 
the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as 
any other man am in favor of the superior position being 
assigned to the white man." 

A voice: That 's the doctrine. 

Mr. Douglas: Yes, sir, that is good doctrine; but 
Mr. Lincoln is afraid to advocate it in the latitude of 
Chicago, where he hopes to get his votes. It is good 
doctrine in the an ti -Abolition counties for him, and 
his Chicago speech is good doctrine in the Abolition 
counties. I assert, on the authority of these two 
speeches of Mr. Lincoln, that he holds one set of 
principles in the Abolition counties, and a different 



Stephen A. Douglas 183 

and contradictory set in the other counties. I do 
not question that he said at Ottawa what he quoted ; 
but that onl}^ convicts him further, by proving that 
he has twice contradicted himself, instead of once. 
Let me ask him why he cannot avow his principles 
the same in the north as in the south, — the same in 
every county, — if he has a conviction that they are 
just? But I forgot, — he would not be a Republican 
if his principles would apply alike to every part of 
the country. The party to which he belongs is 
bounded and limited by geographical lines. With 
their principles, they cannot even cross the Missis- 
sippi River on your ferry-boats. They cannot cross 
over the Ohio into Kentucky. Lincoln himself can- 
not visit the land of his fathers, the scenes of his 
childhood, the graves of his ancestors, and carry his 
Abolition principles, as he declared them at Chicago, 
with him. 

This Republican organization appeals to the 
North against the South; it appeals to Northern 
passion, Northern prejudice, and Northern ambition, 
against Southern people, Southern States, and 
Southern institutions, and its only hope of success 
is by that appeal. Mr. Lincoln goes on to justify 
himself in making a war upon slavery upon the 
groand that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown did not 
succeed in their warfare upon the institution in 
Missouri. Frank Blair was elected to Congress in 
1856, from the State of Missouri, as a Buchanan 
Democrat, and he turned Fremonter after the peo- 
ple elected him, thus belonging to one party before 
election, and another afterward. What right then 



1 84 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

had he to expect, after having thus cheated his con- 
stituency, that they would support him at another 
election ? Mr. Lincoln thinks it is his duty to preach 
a crusade in the free States against slavery, because 
it is a crime, as he believes, and ought to be extin- 
guished, and because the people of the slave States 
will never abolish it. How is he going to abolish it ? 
Down in the southern part of the State he takes the 
ground openly that he will not interfere with slavery 
where it exists, and says that he is not now and never 
was in favor of interfering with slavery where it 
exists in the States. Well, if he is not in favor of 
that, how does he expect to bring slavery in a course 
of ultimate extinction ? How can he extingtiish it in 
Kentucky, in Virginia, in all the slave States by his 
policy, if he will not pursue a policy which will 
interfere with it in the States where it exists ? In his 
speech at Springfield before the Abolition, or Repub- 
lican, Convention, he declared his hostility to any 
more slave States in this language : 

" Under the operation of that policy the agitation has 
not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In 
my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been 
reached and passed. 'A house divided against itself 
cannot stand.' I believe this government cannot endure 
permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect 
the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to 
fall ; but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will 
become all one thing, or all the other. Either the op- 
ponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, 
and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief 
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its ad- 



Stephen A. Douglas 185 

vocated will push it forward until it shall become alike 
lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as 
well as South." 

Mr. Lincoln there told his Abolition friends that 
this government could not endure permanently, 
divided into free and slave States as our fathers 
made it, and that it must become all free or all slave ; 
otherwise, that the government could not exist. 
How then does Lincoln propose to save the Union, 
unless by compelling all the States to become free, so 
that the house shall not be divided against itself? 
He intends making them all free; he will preserve 
the Union in that way; and yet he is not going to 
interfere with slavery where it now exists. How is 
he going to bring it about ? Why he will agitate, he 
will induce the North to agitate, until the South shall 
be worried out and forced to abolish slavery. Let us 
examine the policy by which that is to be done. He 
first tells you that he would prohibit slavery every- 
where in the Territories. He would thus confine 
slavery within its present limits. When he thus 
gets it confined, and surrounded, so that it cannot 
spread, the natural laws of increase will go on until 
the negroes will be so plenty that they cannot live on 
the soil. He will hem them in until starvation 
seizes them, and by starving them to death he will 
put slavery in the course of ultimate extinction. If 
he is not going to interfere with slavery in the States, 
but intends to interfere and prohibit it in the Terri- 
tories, and thus smother slavery out, it naturally fol- 
lows that he can extinguish it only by extinguishing 



1 86 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the negro race ; for his policy would drive them to 
starvation. This is the humane and Christian 
remedy that he proposes for the great crime of 
slavery ! 

He tells you that I will not argue the question 
f whether slavery is right or wrong. I tell you why I 
will not do it. I hold that, tmder the Constitution 
of the United States, each State of this Union has a 
right to do as it pleases on the subject of slavery. In 
Illinois we have exercised that sovereign right by 
prohibiting slavery within our own limits. I approve 
of that line of policy. We have performed our whole 
duty in Illinois. We have gone as far as we have a 
right to go under the Constitution of our common 
country. It is none of our business whether slavery 
exists in Missouri or not. Missouri is a sovereign 

I State of this Union, and has the same right to decide 
the slavery question for herself that Illinois has to 

\ decide it for herself. Hence I do not choose to 
occupy the time allotted to me in discussing a ques- 
tion that we have no right to act upon. I thought 
that 3^ou desired to hear us upon those questions 
coming within our constitutional power of action. 
Lincoln will not discuss these. What one question 
has he discussed that comes within the power or 
calls for the action or interference of an United States 
Senator? He is going to discuss the rightfulness of 
slavery when Congress cannot act upon it either way. 
He wishes to discuss the merits of the Dred Scott 
decision when, under the Constitution, a senator has 
no right to interfere with the decision of judicial 
tribunals. He wants your exclusive attention to 



Stephen A. Douglas 187 

two questions that he has no power to act upon ; to 
two questions that he could not vote upon if he was 
in Congress ; to two questions that are not practical, 
— in order to conceal from your attention other ques- 
tions which he might be required to vote upon should 
lie ever become a member of Congress. He tells you 
that he does not like the Dred Scott decision. Sup- 
pose he does not, how is he going to help himself? 
He says that he will reverse it. How will he reverse 
it? I know of but one mode of reversing judicial 
decisions, and that is by appealing from the inferior 
to the superior court. But I have never yet learned 
how or where an appeal could be taken from the 
vSupreme Cotirt of the United States! The Dred 
Scott decision was pronounced by the highest 
tribunal on earth. From that decision there is no 
appeal, this side of heaven. Yet, Mr. Lincoln says 
he is going to reverse that decision. By what tri- 
bunal will he reverse it ? Will he appeal to a mob ? 
Does he intend to appeal to violence, to Lynch law? 
Will he stir up strife and rebellion in the land, and 
overthrow the court by violence ? He does not deign 
to tell you how he will reverse the Dred Scott deci- 
sion, but keeps appealing each day from the Supreme 
Court of the United States to political meetings in 
the country. He wants me to argue with you the 
merits of each point of that decision before this 
political meeting. I say to you, with all due respect, 
that I choose to abide by the decisions of the Supreme 
Court as they are pronounced. It is not for me to 
inquire, after a decision is made, whether I like it 
in all the points or not. When I used to practise law 



1 88 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

with Lincoln, I never knew him to be beat in a case 
that he did not get mad at the judge, and talk about 
appealing ; and when I got beat, I generally thought 
the court was wrong, but I never dreamed of going 
out of the courthouse and making a stump speech to 
the people against the judge, merely because I had 
found out that I did not know the law as well as he 
did. If the decision did not suit me, I appealed 
until I got to the Supreme Court; and then if that 
court, the highest tribimal in the world, decided 
against me, I was satisfied, because it is the duty of 
every law-abiding man to obey the constitutions, 
the law^s, and the constituted authorities. He who 
attempts to stir up odium and rebellion in the coun- 
try against the constituted authorities is stimu- 
lating the passions of men to resort to violence and 
to mobs instead of to the law. Hence, I tell you that 
I take the decisions of the Supreme Court as the law 
of the land, and I intend to obey them as such. 

But Mr. Lincoln says that I will not answer his 
question as to what I would do in the event of the 
court making so ridiculous a decision as he imagines 
they would by deciding that the free State of Illinois 
could not prohibit slavery within her own limits. I 
told him at Freeport why I would not answer such a 
question. I told him that there was not a man 
possessing any brains in America, lawyer or not, who 
ever dreamed that such a thing could be done. I 
told him then, as I do now, that by all the principles 
set forth in the Dred Scott decision, it is impossible. 
I told him then, as I do now^ that it is an insult to 
men's understanding, and a gross calumny on the 



Stephen A. Douglas 189 

court, to presume in advance that it was going to 
degrade itself so low as to make a decision known 
to be in direct violation of the Constitution. 

A voice : The same thing was said about the Dred 
Scott decision before it passed. 

Mr. Douglas: Perhaps you think that the court 
did the same thing in reference to the Dred Scott 
decision: I have heard a man talk that way before. 
The principles contained in the Dred Scott decision 
had been affirmed previously in various other 
decisions. What court or judge ever held that a 
negro was a citizen? The State courts had decided 
that question over and over again, and the Dred Scott 
decision on that point only affirmed what every court 
in the land knew to be the law. 

But I will not be drawn off into an argument upon 
the merits of the Dred Scott decision. It is enough 
for me to know that the Constitution of the United 
States created the Supreme Court for the purpose of 
deciding all disputed questions touching the true con- 
struction of that instrument, and when such deci- 
sions are pronounced, they are the law of the land, 
binding on every good citizen. Mr. Lincoln has a 
very convenient mode of arguing upon the subject. 
He holds that because he is a Republican that he is 
not bound by the decisions of the court, but that I, 
being a Democrat, am so bound. It may be that 
Republicans do not hold themselves bound by the 
laws of the land and the Constitution of the country 
as expounded by the courts ; it may be an article in 
the Republican creed that men who do not like a 
decision have a right to rebel against it: but when 



190 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 



fe' 



Mr. Lincoln preaches that doctrine, I think he will 
find some honest Republican — some law-abiding 
man in that party — who will repudiate such a mon- 
strous doctrine. The decision in the Dred Scott 
case is binding on every American citizen alike ; and 
yet Mr. Lincoln argues that the Republicans are not 
bound by it because they are opposed to it, whilst 
Democrats are bound by it, because we will not resist 
it. A Democrat cannot resist the constituted au- 
thorities of this cotmtry ; a Democrat is a law-abiding 
man; a Democrat stands by the Constitution and 
the laws, and relies upon liberty as protected by 
law, and not upon mob or political violence. 

I have never yet been able to make Mr. Lincoln 
understand, nor can I make any man who is deter- 
mined to support him, right or wrong, understand 
how it is that under the Dred Scott decision the 
people of a Territory, as well as a State, can have 
slavery or not, just as they please. I believe that I 
can explain that proposition to all constitution-lov- 
ing, law-abiding men in a way that they cannot fail 
to understand it. Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion 
in the Dred Scott case, said that, slaves being prop- 
erty, the owner of them has a right to take them into 
a Territory the same as he would any other property ; 
in other w^ords, that slave property, so far as the 
right to enter a Territory is concerned, stands on the 
same footing with other property. Suppose we 
grant that proposition. Then any man has a right to 
go to Kansas and take his property with him; but 
when he gets there, he must rely upon the local law 
to protect his property, w^hatever it may be. In 



Stephen A. Douglas 191 

order to illustrate this, imagine that three of you 
conclude to go to Kansas. One takes $10,000 worth 
of slaves, another $10,000 worth of liquors, and the 
third $10,000 worth of dry -goods. When the man 
who owns the dry -goods arrives out there and com- 
mences selling them, he finds that he is stopped and 
prohibited from selling until he gets a license, to pay 
for which will destroy all the profits he can make 
on his goods. When the man with the liquors gets 
there and tries to sell, he finds a Maine liquor law in 
force which prevents him. Now, of what use is his 
right to go there with his property unless he is pro- 
tected in the enjoyment of that right after he gets 
there ? The man who gets there with his slaves finds 
that there is no law to protect him when he arrives 
there. He has no remedy if his slaves run away to 
another country; there is no slave code or police 
regulations; and the absence of them excludes his 
slaves from the Territory just as effectually and as 
positively as a constitutional prohibition could. 

Such was the understanding when the Kansas and 
Nebraska Bill was pending in Congress. Read the 
speech of Speaker Orr, of South Carolina, in the 
House of Representatives, in 1856, on the Kansas 
question, and you will find that he takes the ground 
that while the owner of a slave has a right to go into 
a Territory and carry his slaves with him, that he canj 
not hold them one day or hour unless there is a slave 
code to protect him. He tells you that slavery would 
not exist a day in South Carolina, or any other State, 
unless there was a friendly people and friendly legis-j 
lation. Read the speeches of that giant in intellect,! 



192 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, and you will 
find them to the same effect. Read the speeches of 
Sam Smith, of Tennessee, and of all Southern men, 
and you will find that they all understood this 
doctrine then as we understand it now. Mr. Lincoln 
cannot be made to understand it, however. Down 
at Jonesboro, he went on to argue that if it be the law 
that a man has a right to take his slaves into territory 
of the United States under the Constitution, that 
then a member of Congress was perjured if he did 
not vote for a slave code. I ask him whether the 
decision of the Supreme Court is not binding upon 
him as well as on me ? If so, and he holds that he 
would be perjured if he did not vote for a slave code 
under it, I ask him whether, if elected to Congress, 
he will so vote ? I have a right to his answer, and I 
will tell you why. He put that question to me down 
in Egypt, and did it with an air of triumph. This 
was about the form of it : In the event that a slave- 
holding citizen of one of the Territories should need 
and demand a slave code to protect his slaves, will 
you vote for it? I answered him that a funda- 
mental article in the Democratic creed, as put forth 
in the Nebraska Bill and the Cincinnati platform, 
was non-intervention by Congress with slavery in 
the States and Territories, and hence that I would 
not vote in Congress for any code of laws either for 
or against slavery in any Territory. I will leave the 
people perfectly free to decide that question for 
themselves. 

Mr. Lincoln and the Washington Union both think 
this a monstrous bad doctrine. Neither Mr. Lincoln 



Stephen A. Douglas 193 

nor the Washington Union like my Freeport speech 
on that subject. The Union, in a late number, has 
been reading me out of the Democratic party because 
I hold that the people of a Territory, like those of a 
State, have the right to have slavery or not, as they 
please. It has devoted three and a half columns to 
prove certain propositions, one of which I will read. 
It says: 

"We propose to show that Judge Douglas's action in 
1850 and 1854 was taken with especial reference to the 
announcement of doctrine and programme which was 
made at Freeport. The declaration at Freeport was 
that 'in his opinion the people can, by lawful means, 
exclude slavery from a Territory before it comes in as a 
State ' ; and he declared that his competitor had ' heard 
him argue the Nebraska Bill on that principle all over 
Illinois in 1854, 1855, and 1856, and had no excuse to 
pretend to have any doubt upon that subject.' " 

The Washington Union there charges me with the 
monstrous crime of now proclaiming on the stump 
the same doctrine that I carried out in 1850, by 
supporting Clay's Compromise measures. The Union 
also charges that I am now proclaiming the same 
doctrine that I did in 1854 in support of the Kansas 
and Nebraska Bill. It is shocked that I should now 
stand where I stood in 1850, when I was supported by 
Clay, Webster, Cass, and the great men of that day, 
and where I stood in 1854 and in 1856, when Mr. 
Buchanan was elected President. It goes on to 
prove, and succeeds in proving, from my speeches in 
Congress on Clay's Compromise measures, that I 



T94 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

held the same doctrines at that time that I do now, 
and then proves that by the Kansas and Nebraska 
Bill I advanced the same doctrine that I now advance. 
It remarks: 

"So much for the course taken by Judge Douglas on 
the Compromises of 1850. The record shows, beyond 
the possibiHty of cavil or dispute, that he expressly in- 
tended in those bills to give the Territorial Legislatures 
power to exclude slavery. How stands his record in the 
memorable session of 1854, with reference to the Kansas- 
Nebraska Bill itself? We shall not overhaul the votes 
that were given on that notable measure ; our space will 
not afford it. We have his own words, however, de- 
livered in his speech closing the great debate on that bill 
on the night of March 3, 1854, to show that he meant to 
do in 1854 precisely what he had meant to do in 1858. 
The Kansas-Nebraska Bill being upon its passage, he 
said:" 

It then quotes my remarks upon the passage of the 
bill as follows: 

" The principle which we propose to carry into effect 
by this bill is this: That Congress shall neither legislate 
slavery into any Territory or State, nor out of the same ; 
but the people shall be left free to regulate their domestic 
concerns in their own way, subject only to the Constitu- 
tion of the United States. In order to carry this prin- 
ciple into practical operation, it becomes necessary to 
remove whatever legal obstacles might be found in the 
way of its free exercise. It is only for the pui-pose of 
carrying out this great fundamental principle of self- 
government that the bill renders the eighth section of 
the Missouri Act inoperative and void. 

" Now, let me ask, will those senators who have ar- 



Stephen A. Douglas 195 

raigned me, or any one of them, have the assurance to 
rise in his place and declare that this great principle was 
never thought of or advocated as applicable to Terri- 
torial bills, in 1850; that, from that session until the 
present, nobody ever thought of incorporating this 
principle in all new Territorial organizations, etc., etc.? 
I will begin with the Compromises of 1850. Any senator 
who will take the trouble to examine our journals will 
find that on the 25th of March of that year I reported 
from the Committee on Territories two bills, including the 
following measures : the admission of California, a Terri- 
torial government for Utah, a Territorial government for 
New Mexico, and the adjustment of the Texas boundary. 
These bills proposed to leave the people of Utah and 
New Mexico free to decide the slavery question for 
themselves, in the precise language of the Nebraska Bill 
now under discussion. A few weeks afterward the com- 
mittee of thirteen took those bills and put a wafer be- 
tween them, and reported them back to the Senate as 
one bill, with some slight amendments. One of these 
amendments was, that the Territorial Legislatures should 
not legislate upon the subject of African slavery. I ob- 
jected to this provision, upon the ground that it sub- 
verted the great principle of self-government, upon 
which the bill had been originally framed by the Terri- 
torial Committee. On the first trial the Senate refused 
to strike it out, but subsequently did so, upon full de- 
bate, in order to establish that principle as the rule of 
action in Territorial organizations." 

The Union comments thus upon my speech on that 
occasion : 

" Thus it is seen that, in framing the Nebraska-Kansas 
Bill, Judge Douglas framed it in the terms and upon the 



19^ Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

model of those of Utah and New Mexico, and that in the 
debate he took pains expressly to revive the recollection 
of the voting which had taken place upon amendments 
affecting the powers of the Territorial Legislatures over 
the subject of slavery in the bills of 1850, in order to give 
the same meaning, force, and effect to the Nebraska- 
Kansas Bill on this subject as had been given to those 
of Utah and New Mexico." 

The Union proves the following propositions: 
First, that I sustained Clay's Compromise measures 
on the ground that they established the principle of 
self-gov^emment in the Territories. Secondly, that 
I brought in the Kansas and Nebraska Bill, founded 
upon the same principles as Clay's Compromise 
measures of 1850; and, thirdly, that my Freeport 
speech is in exact accordance with those principles. 
And what do you think is the imputation that the 
Union casts upon me for all this? It says that my 
Freeport speech is not Democratic, and that I was 
not a Democrat in 1854 or in 1850! Now is not that 
funny? Think that the author of the Kansas and 
Nebraska Bill was not a Democrat when he intro- 
duced it! The Union says I was not a sound Demo- 
crat in 1850, nor in 1854, nor in 1856, nor am I in 
1858, because I have always taken and now occupy 
the ground that the people of a Territory, like those 
of a State, have the right to decide for themselves 
whether slavery shall or shall not exist in a Territor}^! 
I wish to cite, for the benefit of the Washington 
Union and the followers of that sheet, one authority 
on that point, and I hope the authority will be 
deemed satisfactory to that class of politicians. I 



Stephen A. Douglas 197 

will read from Mr. Buchanan's letter accepting the 
nomination of the Democratic Convention, for the 
Presidency. You know that Mr. Buchanan, after he 
was nominated, declared to the Keystone Club, in a 
public speech, that he was no longer James Buchanan 
but the embodiment of the Democratic platform. 
In his letter to the committee which informed him of 
his nomination, accepting it, he defined the meaning 
of the Kansas and Nebraska Bill and the Cincinnati 
platform in these words: 

" The recent legislation of Congress respecting domestic 
slavery, derived as it has been from the original and pure 
fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the ma- 
jority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous excitement. 
This legislation is founded upon principles as ancient as 
free government itself, and, in accordance with them, 
has simply declared that the people of a Territory, like 
those of a State, shall decide for themselves whether 
slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits." 

Thus you see that James Buchanan accepted the 
nomination at Cincinnati on the condition that the 
people of a Territory, like those of a State, should be 
left to decide for themselves whether slavery should 
or should not exist within their limits. I sustained 
James Buchanan for the Presidency on that plat- 
form as adopted at Cincinnati, and expounded by 
himself. He was elected President on that plat- 
form, and now we are told by the Washington Union 
that no man is a true Democrat who stands on the 
platform on which Mr. Buchanan was nominated, 
and which he has explained and expounded himself. 



198 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

We are told that a man is not a Democrat who stands 
by Clay, Webster, and Cass, and the Compromise 
measures of 1850, and the Kansas and Nebraska Bill 
of 1854. Whether a man be a Democrat or not on 
that platform, I intend to stand there as long as I 
have life. I intend to cling firmly to that principle 
which declares the right of each State and each 
Territory to settle the question of slavery, and every 
other domestic question, for themselves. I hold that 
if they want a slave State they have a right under 
the Constitution of the United States to make it so, 
and if they want a free State, it is their right to have 
it. But the Union, in advocating the claims of 
Lincoln over me to the Senate, lays down two un- 
pardonable heresies which it says I advocate. The 
first is the right of the people of a Territory, the same 
as a State, to decide for themselves the question 
whether slavery shall exist within their limits, in the 
language of Mr. Buchanan ; and the second is, that a 
constitution shall be submitted to the people of a 
Territor}^ for its adoption or rejection before their 
admission as a State under it. It so happens that 
Mr. Buchanan is pledged to both these heresies, for 
supporting which the Washington Union has read 
me out of the Democratic church. In his annual 
message he said he trusted that the example of the 
Minnesota case would be followed in all future cases, 
requiring a submission of the constitution; and in 
his letter of acceptance, he said that the people of a 
Territory, the same as a State, had the right to de- 
cide for themselves whether slavery should exist 
within their limits. Thus you find that this little 



I 



Stephen A. Douglas 199 

corrupt gang who control the Union and wish to 
elect Lincoln in preference to me, — ^because, as they 
say, of these two heresies which I support,— denounce 
President Buchanan when they denounce me, if he 
stands now by the principles on which he was elected. 
Will they pretend that he does not now stand by the 
principles on which he was elected? Do they hold 
that he has abandoned the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, 
the Cincinnati platform, and his own letter accepting 
his nomination, all of which declare the right of the 
people of a Territory, the same as a State, to decide 
the slavery question for themselves? I will not 
believe that he has betrayed or intends to betray 
the platform which elected him, but if he does I will 
not follow him. I will stand by that great principle 
no matter who may desert it. I intend to stand by 
it, for the purpose of preserving peace between the 
North and the South, the free and the slave States. 
If each State will only agree to mind its own business 
and let its neighbors alone, there will be peace forever 
between us. 

We in Illinois tried slavery when a Territory, and 
found it was not good for us in this climate, and with 
our surroundings, and hence we abolished it. We 
then adopted a free State constitution, as we had a 
right to do. In this State we have declared that a 
negro shall not be a citizen, and we have also de- 
clared that he shall not be a slave. We had a right 
to adopt that policy. Missouri has just as good a 
right to adopt the other policy. I am now speaking 
of rights under the Constitution, and not of moral or 
religious rights. I do not discuss the morals of the 



200 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

people of Missouri, but let them settle that matter 
for themselves. I hold that the people of the slave- 
holding States are civihzed men as well as ourselves, 
that they bear consciences as well as we, and that 
I they are accountable to God and their posterity, 
I and not to us. It is for them to decide, therefore, 
the moral and religious right of the slavery question 
for themselves, within their own Hmits. I assert 
that they had as much right under the Constitution to 
adopt the system of policy which they have as we 
had to adopt ours. So it is with every other State in 
this Union. Let each State stand firmly by that 
great constitutional right, let each State mind its 
I own business and let its neighbors alone, and there 
j will be no trouble on this question. If we will stand 
j by that principle, then Mr. Lincoln will find that 
this Republic can exist forever divided into free and 
slave States, as our fathers made it and the people of 
each State have decided. Stand by that great 
principle, and we can go on as we have been, increas- 
ing in wealth, in population, in power, and in all the 
elements of greatness, until we shall be the admira- 
tion and terror of the world. We can go on and 
enlarge as our population increases and requires more 
room, until we make this continent one ocean-bound 
republic. Under that principle the United States 
can perform that great mission, that destiny, which 
Providence has marked out for us. Under that 
principle we can receive with entire safety that 
stream of intelligence which is constantly flowing 
from the Old World to the New, filling up our prairies, 
clearing our wildernesses, and building cities, towns, 



Stephen A. Douglas 201 

railroads, and other internal improvements, and thus 
make this the asylum of the oppressed of the whole 
earth. We have this great mission to perform, and 
it can only be performed by adhering faithfully 
to that principle of self-government on which our 
institutions were all established. I repeat that the 
principle is the right of each State, each Territory, 
to decide this slavery question for itself, to have 
slavery or not, as it chooses ; and it does not become 
Mr. Lincoln, or anybody else, to tell the people of 
Kentucky that they have no consciences, that they 
are living in a state of iniquity, and that they are 
cherishing an institution to their bosoms in violation 
of the law of God. Better for him to adopt the 
doctrine of "Judge not, lest ye shall be judged." 
Let him perform his own duty at home, and he will 
have a better fate in the future. I think there are 
objects of charity enough in the free States to excite 
the sympathies and open the pockets of all the 
benevolence we have amongst us, without going 
abroad in search of negroes, of whose condition we 
know nothing. We have enough objects of charity 
at home, and it is our duty to take care of our own 
poor and our own suffering, before we go abroad to 
intermeddle with other people's business. 

My friends, I am told that my time is within two 
minutes of expiring. I have omitted many topics 
that I would like to have discussed before you at 
length. There were many points touched by Mr. 
Lincoln that I have not been able to take up for the 
want of time. I have hurried over each subject that 
I have discussed as rapidly as possible, so as to omit 



202 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

but few ; but one hour and a half is not time sufficient 
for a man to discuss at length one half of the great 
questions which are now dividing the pubhc mind. 
In conclusion, I desire to return to you my grate- 
ful acknowledgments for the kindness and the 
courtesy with which you have listened to me. It 
is something remarkable that in an audience as vast 
as this, composed of men of opposite politics and 
views, with their passions highly excited, there should 
be so much courtesy, kindness, and respect exhibited, 
not only toward one another, but toward the 
speakers ; and I feel that it is due to you that I should 
thus express my gratitude for the kindness with 
which you have treated me. 



MR. LINCOLN S REJOINDER. 

My Friends : Since Judge Douglas has said to you 
in his conclusion that he had not time in an hour and 
a half to answer all I had said in an hour, it follows of 
course that I will not be able to answer in half an hour 
all that he said in an hour and a half. 

I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound 
thanks for his public annunciation here to-day, to be 
put on record, that his system of policy in regard to 
the institution of slavery contemplates that it shall 
last forever. We are getting a little nearer the tnie 
issue of this controversy, and I am profoundly 
grateful for this one sentence. Judge Douglas asks 
you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or 
rather, why cannot the nation, part slave and part 



Abraham Lincoln 203 

free, continue as our fathers made it, forever? In 
the first place, I insist that our fathers did not make 
this nation half slave and half free, or part slave and 
part free. I insist that they found the institution 
of slavery existing here. They did not make it so 
but they left it so because they knew of no way to 
get rid of it at that time. When Judge Douglas 
undertakes to say that, as a matter of choice, the 
fathers of the government made this nation part 
slave and part free, he assumes what is historically a 
falsehood. More than that : when the fathers of the 
government cut off the source of slavery by the 
abolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system 
of restricting it from the new Territories where it had 
not existed, I maintain that they placed it where they 
understood, and all sensible men understood, it was 
in the course of ultimate extinction ; and when Judge 
Douglas asks me why it cannot continue as our 
fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friends 
could not let it remain as our fathers made it ? 

It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the in- 
stitution of slavery, that it shall be placed upon the 
basis that our fathers placed it upon. Mr. Brooks, 
of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, that 
when this government was established, no one ex- 
pected the institution of slavery to last until this day, 
and that the men who formed this government were 
wiser and better than the men of these days ; but the 
men of these days had experience which the fathers 
had not, and that experience had taught them the 
invention of the cotton-gin, and this had made the 
perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity 



204 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

in this country. Judge Douglas could not let it 
stand upon the basis which our fathers placed it, but 
removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis. It is 
a question, therefore, for him and his friends to 
answer, why they could not let it remain where the 
fathers of the government originally placed it. 

I hope nobody has understood me as trying to 
sustain the doctrine that we have a right to quarrel 
with Kentucky, or Virginia, or any of the slave 
States, about the institution of slavery, — thus giving 
the Judge an opportunity to be eloquent and valiant 
against us in fighting for their rights. I expressly 
declared in my opening speech that I had neither 
the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the exist- 
ence of, the right to interfere with the States of 
Kentucky or Virginia in doing as they pleased with 
slavery or any other existing institution. Then 
what becomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the 
rights of States, which are assailed by no living man ? 

But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. 
The Judge has informed me, or informed this audi- 
ence, that the Washington Union is laboring for my 
election to the United States Senate. This is news to 
me, — not very ungrateful news either. [Turning to 
Mr. W. H. Carlin, who was on the stand] — I hope 
that Carlin will be elected to the State Senate, and 
will vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head.] 
Carlin don't fall in, I perceive, and I suppose he will 
not do much for me ; but I am glad of all the support 
I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without practising 
any deception to obtain it. In respect to this large 
portion of Judge Douglas's speech in which he tries to 



Abraham Lincoln 205 

show that in the controversy between himself and 
the Administration party he is in the right, I do not 
feel myself at all competent or inclined to answer 
him. I say to him, "Give it to them, — give it to 
them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, I 
say to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man 
Wogley up here in Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, — ■ 
just pour it into him! " 

Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott 
decision, I w^ish to say a word or two. After all, 
the Judge will not say whether, if a decision is made 
holding that the people of the States cannot exclude 
slavery, he will support it or not. He obstinately 
refuses to say what he will do in that case. The 
judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused 
to say what they would do on this subject. Before 
this I reminded him that at Galesburgh he said the 
judges had expressly declared the contrary, and you 
remember that in my opening speech I told him I 
had the book containing that decision here, and I 
would thank him to lay his finger on the place where 
any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour 
and a half, and he has not ventured to try to sustain 
his assertion. He never will. But he is desirous of 
knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred 
Scott decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. 
Did not he and his political friends find a way to 
reverse the decision of that same court in favor of 
the constitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't 
they find a way to do it so effectually that they have 
reversed it as completely as any decision ever was 
reversed, so far as its practical operation is concerned ? 



2o6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way 
to reverse the decision of our Supreme Court when it 
decided that Carlin's father — old Governor Carlin — 
had not the constitutional power to remove a Secre- 
tary of State? Did he not appeal to the "mobs," as 
he calls them? Did he not make speeches in the 
lobhy to show how villainous that decision was, and 
how it ought to be overthrown ? Did he not succeed, 
too, in getting an act passed by the Legislature to 
have it overthrown ? And did n't he himself sit down 
on that bench as one of the five added judges, who 
were to overslaugh the four old ones, — getting his 
name of "Judge" in that way, and no other? If 
there is a villainy in using disrespect or making op- 
position to Supreme Court decisions, I commend it 
to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I know 
of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know 
so well about how much villainy it takes to oppose a 
decision of the Supreme Court as our honorable friend 
Stephen A. Douglas. 

Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I 
say the Democrats are bound by the Dred Scott 
decision, while the Republicans are not. In the 
sense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will 
tell you what I have said and what I do not hesitate 
to repeat to-day. I have said that as the Democrats 
believe that decision to be correct, and that the ex- 
tension of slavery is affimied in the National Con- 
stitution, they are bound to support it as such; and 
I will tell you here that General Jackson once said 
each man was bound to support the Constitution 
"as he imderstood it." Now, Judge Douglas under- 



Abraham Lincoln 207 

stands the Constitution according to the Dred Scott 
decision, and he is bound to support it as he under- 
stands it. I understand it another way, and there- 
fore I am bound to support it in the way in which I 
understand it. And as Judge Douglas beHeves that 
decision to be correct, I will remake that argument if 
I have time to do so. Let me talk to some gentleman 
down there among you who looks me in the face. 
We will say you are a member of the Territorial 
Legislature, and, like Judge Douglas, you believe 
that the right to take and hold slaves there is a con- 
stitutional right. The first thing you do is to swear 
you will support the Constitution and all rights 
guaranteed therein; that you will, whenever your 
neighbor needs your legislation to support his con- 
stitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If 
you withhold that necessary legislation for the sup- 
port of the Constitution and constitutional rights, 
do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible 
man if that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, 
say what you please. Now, that is precisely what 
Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutional 
right. D jes the Judge mean to say that the Terri- 
torial Legislature in legislating may, by withholding 
necessary laws, or by passing unfriendly laws, nullify 
that constitutional right f Does he mean to say that? 
Does he mean to ignore the proposition so long and 
well established in law, that what you cannot do di- 
rectly, you cannot do indirectly ? Does he mean that ? 
The truth about the matter is this : Judge Douglas 
has sung paeans to his "Popular Sovereignty" 
doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating with 



2o8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

him, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. 
But he will keep up this species of humbuggery 
about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last in- 
vented this sort of do-nothing sovereignty, — that the 
people may exclude slavery by a sort of "sover- 
eignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. 
Is not that running his Popular Sovereignty down 
awfully ? Has it not got down as thin as the homoe- 
opathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of 
a pigeon that had starved to death? But at last, 
when it is brought to the test of close reasoning, there 
is not even that thin decoction of it left. It is a 
presumption impossible in the domain of thought. 
It is precisely no other than the putting of that most 
unphilosophical proposition, that two bodies can 
occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred 
Scott decision covers the whole ground, and while 
it occupies it, there is no room even for the shadow of 
a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. 

Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about 
having upon a previous occasion made the speech at 
Ottawa as the one he took an extract from at Charles- 
ton, says it only shows that I practised the deception 
twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse 
enough to swallow that? Judge Douglas had said I 
had made a speech at Charleston that I would not 
make up north, and I turned around and answered 
him by showing I had made that same speech up 
north, — ^had made it at Ottawa ; made it in his hear- 
ing; made it in the Abolition District, — in Lovejoy's 
District, — in the personal presence of Lovejoy him- 
self, — in the same atmosphere exactly in which I 



Abraham Lincoln 209 

had made my Chicago speech, of which he complains 
so much. 

Now, in relation to my not having said anything 
about the quotation from the Chicago speech: he 
thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. 
Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance 
of the Chicago speech I delivered two years ago in 
"Egypt," as he calls it. It was down at Springfield. 
That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to 
it and read it to you but for the lack of time. I have 
not now the time to read it. ["Read it, read it."] 
No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discretion in dis- 
posing most advantageously of my brief time. The 
Judge has taken great exception to my adopting the 
heretical statement in the Declaration of Independ- 
ence, that "all men are created equal," and he has a 
great deal to say about negro equality. I want to 
say that in sometimes alluding to the Declaration 
of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments 
that Henry Clay used to hold. Allow me to occupy 
your time a moment with what he said. Mr. Clay 
was at one time called upon in Indiana, and in a way 
that I suppose was very insulting, to liberate his 
slaves ; and he made a written reply to that applica- 
tion, and one portion of it is in these words: 

" What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana 
to Hberate the slaves under my care in Kentucky ? It is a 
general declaration in the act announcing to the world 
the independence of the thirteen American colonies, 
that 'men are createa equal.' Now, as an abstract prin- 
ciple, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and 
it is desirable in the original construction of society, and 



2IO Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

in organized societies, to keep it in view as a great funda' 
mental principle." 



When I sometimes, in relation to the organization 
of new societies in new countries, where the soil is 
clean and clear, insisted that we should keep that 
principle in view. Judge Douglas will have it that I 
want a negro wife. He never can be brought to 
understand that there is any middle ground on this 
subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and 
have never had a negro woman either for a slave or a 
wife, and I think I can live fifty centuries, for that 
matter, without having had one for either. I main- 
tain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations 
from my Chicago speech, and from my Charleston 
speech, and the Galesburgh speech, — in his speech 
of to-day, — and compare them over, and I am will- 
ing to trust them with you upon his proposition that 
they show rascality or double-dealing. I den}^ that 
they do. 

The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have 
peace, but I find he is disposed to have a personal 
warfare with me. He says that my oath would not 
be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lan- 
phier or Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether 
a matter of opinion. It is certainly not for me to 
vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, 
but I will tell Judge Douglas again the facts upon 
which I "dared'' to say they proved a forgery. I 
pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of 
these resolutions in the Illinois State Register could 
not have been the result of accident, as the proceed- 



Abraham Lincoln 211 

ings of that meeting bore unmistakable evidence of 
being done by a man who knew it was a forgery; 
that it was a publication partly taken from the real 
proceedings of the Convention, and partly from the 
proceedings of a convention at another place, — 
which showed that he had the real proceedings be- 
fore him, and taking one part of the resolutions, he 
threw out another part, and substituted false and 
fraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to 
him, and also that his friend Lanphier, who was 
editor of the Register at that time and now is, must 
have known how it was done. Now, whether he 
did it, or got some friend to do it for him, I could 
not tell, but he certainly knew all about it. I 
pointed otit to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport 
speech he had promised to investigate that matter. 
Does he now say he did not make that promise? I 
have a right to ask why he did not keep it. I call 
upon him to tell here to-day why he did not keep 
that promise? That fraud has been traced up so 
that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. 
There is little room for escape for Lanphier. Lan- 
phier is doing the Judge good service, and Douglas 
desires his word to be taken for the truth. He 
desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what 
he states in his newspaper. He desires Harris to be 
taken as a man of vast credibility; and when this 
thing lies among them, they will not press it to show 
where the guilt really belongs. Now, as he has said 
that he would investigate it, and implied that he 
would tell us the result of his investigation, I de- 
mand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, 



212 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

if he did not; and if he did, why he won't tell the 
result. I call upon him for that. 

This is the third time that Judge Douglas has 
assumed that he learned about these resolutions b}^ 
Harris's attempting to use them against Norton on 
the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the pub- 
lic records of the country show that he himself at- 
tempted it tipon Trumbull a month before Harris 
tried them on Norton; that Harris had the op- 
portunity of learning it from him, rather than he 
from Harris. I now ask his attention to that part 
of the record on the case. My friends, I am not dis- 
posed to detain you longer in regard to that matter. 

I am told that I still have five minutes left. There 
is another matter I wish to call attention to. He 
says, when he discovered there was a mistake in that 
case, he came forward magnanimously, without my 
calling his attention to it, and explained it. I will 
tell you how he became so magnanimous. When 
the newspapers of our side had discovered and pub- 
lished it, and put it beyond his power to deny it, 
then he came forw^ard and made a virtue of necessity 
by acknowledging it. Now he argues that all the 
point there was in those resolutions, although never 
passed at Springfield, is retained by their being 
passed at other localities. Is that true? He said I 
had a hand in passing tjiem, in his opening speech, — 
that I was in the convention and helped to pass 
them. Do the resolutions touch me at all? It 
strikes me there is some difference between holding a 
man responsible for an act which he has not done 
and holding him responsible for an act that he has 



Abraham Lincoln 213 

done. You will judge whether there is any differ- 
ence in the ''spots.'' And he has taken credit for 
great magnanimity in coming forward and acknow- 
ledging what is proved on him beyond even the 
capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has more 
capacity in that way than any other living man. 

Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw 
the charge in regard to a conspiracy to make slavery 
national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. 
May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when 
it is proven false on mc as that was proven false on 
him. I will add a little more than that. I will 
withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be 
brought to believe that the charge is not true. I 
have asked Judge Douglas's attention to certain 
matters of fact tending to prove th^ charge of a con- 
spiracy to nationalize slavery, and he says he con- 
vinces me that this is all untrue because Buchanan 
was not in the country at that time, and because 
the Dred Scott case had not then got into the Su- 
preme Court; and he says that I say the Democratic 
owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did 
say that. I defy Judge Douglas to show that I 
ever said so, for I never tittered it. [One of Mr. 
Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. 
Lincoln.] I don't care if your hireling does say I 
did, I tell you myself that / never said the ''Demo- 
cratic''' otvners of Dred Scott got up the case. I have 
never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's 
owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Free- 
soilers or Border Ruffians. I have said that there 
is evidence about the case tending to show that it 



214 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 



to' 



was a made-up case, for the purpose of getting that 
decision. I have said that that evidence was very 
strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared 
to be a slave, the owner of him made him free, 
showing that he had had the case tried and the 
question settled for such use as could be made of 
that decision; he cared nothing about the property 
thus declared to be his by that decision. But my 
time is out, and I can say no more. 



THE LAST JOINT DEBATE, AT ALTON, 

October 15, 1858. 

SENATOR Douglas's speech. 

Ladies and Gentlemen: It is now nearly four 
months since the canvass between Mr. Lincoln and 
myself commenced. On the i6th of June the Repub- 
lican Convention assembled at Springfield and nom- 
inated Mr. Lincoln as their candidate for the United 
States Senate, and he, on that occasion, delivered a 
speech in which he laid down what he understood 
to be the Republican creed, and the platform on 
which he proposed to stand during the contest. The 
principal points in that speech of Mr. Lincoln's were: 
First, that this government could not endure per- 
manently divided into free and slave States, as our 
fathers made it; that they must all become free or 
all become slave ; all become one thing, or all become 
the other, — otherwise this Union could not continue 
to exist. I give you his opinions almost in the iden- 
tical language he used. His second proposition was 
a crusade against the Supreme Court of the United 
States because of the Dred Scott decision, urging as 
an especial reason for his opposition to that decision 
that it deprived the negroes of the rights and bene- 
fits of that clause in the Constitution of the United 
States which guarantees to the citizens of each State 

315 



2i6 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citi- 
zens of the several States. On the loth of July I 
returned home, and delivered a speech to the people 
of Chicago, in which I announced it to be my purpose 
to appeal to the people of Illinois to sustain the 
course I had pursued in Congress. In that speech I 
joined issue with Mr. Lincoln on the points which he 
had presented. Thus there was an issue clear and dis- 
tinct made up between us on these two propositions 
laid down in the speech of Mr. Lincoln at Spring- 
field, and controverted by me in my reoly to him 
at Chicago. On the next day, the nth of July, Mr. 
Lincoln replied to me at Chicago, explaining at some 
length and reaffirming the positions which he had 
taken in his Springfield .speech. In that Chicago 
speech he even went further than he had before, and 
uttered sentiments in regard to the negro being on 
an equality with the white man. He adopted in 
support of this position the argument which Lovejoy 
and Codding and other Abolition lecturers had made 
familiar in the northern and central portions of the 
State: to wit, that the Declaration of Independence 
having declared all men free and equal, by divine 
law, also that negro equality was an inalienable 
right, of which they could not be deprived. He in- 
sisted, in that speech, that the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence included the negro in the clause asserting 
that all men were created equal, and went so far as 
to say that if one man was allowed to take the posi- 
tion that it did not include the negro, others might 
take the position that it did not include other m.en. 
He said that all these distinctions between this man 



Stephen A. Douglas 217 

and that man, this race and the other race, must be 
discarded, and we must all stand by the Declaration 
of Independence, declaring that all men were created 
equal. 

The issue thus being made up between Mr. Lincoln 
and myself on three points, we went before the people 
of the State. During the following seven weeks, 
between the Chicago speeches and our first meeting 
at Ottawa, he and I addressed large assemblages of 
the people in many of the central counties. In my 
speeches I confined myself closely to those three 
positions which he had taken, controverting his 
proposition that this Union could not exist as our 
fathers made it, divided into free and slave States, 
controverting his proposition of a crusade against 
the Supreme Court because of the Dred Scott deci- 
sion, and controverting his proposition that the 
Declaration of Independence included and meant the 
negroes as well as the white men, when it declared 
all men to be created equal. I supposed at that 
time that these propositions constituted a distinct 
issue between us, and that the opposite positions 
we had taken upon them we would be willing to be 
held to in every part of the State. I never intended 
to waver one hair's breadth from that issue either in 
the north or the south, or wherever I should address 
the people of Illinois. I hold that when the time 
arrives that I cannot proclaim my political creed in 
the same terms, not only in the northern, but the 
southern part of Illinois, not only in the Northern, 
but the Southern States, and wherever the American 
flag waves over American soil, that then there must 



2i8 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

be something wrong in that creed ; so long as we live 
under a common Constitution, so long as we live in 
a confederacy of sovereign and equal States, joined 
together as one for certain purposes, that any politi- 
cal creed is radically wrong which cannot be pro- 
claimed in every State and every section of that 
Union, alike. I took up Mr. Lincoln's three proposi- 
tions in my several speeches, analyzed them, and 
pointed out what I believed to be the radical errors 
contained in them. First, in regard to his doctrine 
that this government was in violation of the law of 
God, which says that a house divided against itself 
cannot stand, I repudiated it as a slander upon the 
immortal framers of our Constitution. I then said, 
1 have often repeated, and now again assert, that in 
my opinion our government can endure forever, 
divided into free and slave States as our fathers 
made it, — each State having the right to prohibit, 
abolish, or sustain slavery, just as it pleases. This 
government was made upon the great basis of the 
sovereignty of the States, the right of each State to 
regulate its own domestic institutions to suit itself; 
and that right was conferred with the understanding 
and expectation that, inasmuch as each locality had 
separate interests, each locality must have different 
and distinct local and domestic institutions, corre- 
sponding to its wants and interests. Our fathers 
knew when they made the government that the laws 
and institutions which were well adapted to the 
Green Mountains of Vermont were unsuited to the 
rice plantations of South Carolina. They knew 
then, as well as we know now, that the laws and in- 



Stephen A. Douglas 219 

stitutions which would be well adapted to the 
beautiful prairies of Illinois would not be suited to 
the mining regions of California. They knew that 
in a republic as broad as this, having such a variety 
of soil, climate, and interest, there must necessarily 
be a corresponding variety of local laws, — the policy 
and institutions of each State adapted to its condi- 
tion and wants. For this reason this Union was 
established on the right of each State to do as it 
pleased on the question of slavery, and every other 
question; and the various States were not allowed 
to complain of, much less interfere with, the policy 
of their neighbors. 

Suppose the doctrine advocated by Mr. Lincoln 
and the Abolitionists of this day had prevailed when 
the Constitution was made, what would have been 
the result? Imagine for a moment that Mr. Lincoln 
had been a member of the Convention that framed 
the Constitution of the United States, and that 
when its members were about to sign that wonderful 
document, he had arisen in that Convention as he 
did at Springfield this summer, and, addressing him- 
self to the President, had said: "A house divided 
against itself cannot stand ; this government divided 
into free and slave States cannot endure, they must 
all be free or all be slave ; they must all be one thing, 
or all the other, otherwise, it is a violation of the 
law of God, and cannot continue to exist" ;— suppose 
Mr. Lincoln had convinced that body of sages that 
that doctrine was sound, what would have been 
the result ? Remember that the Union was then 
composed of thirteen States, twelve of which were 



2 20 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

slaveholcling, and one free. Do you think that the 
one free State would have outvoted the twelve slave- 
holding States, and thus have secured the abolition 
of slavery? On the other hand, would not the 
twelve slaveholding States have outvoted the one 
free State, and thus have fastened slavery, by a 
constitutional provision, on every foot of the Ameri- 
can Republic forever? You see that if this Aboli- 
tion doctrine of Mr. Lincoln had prevailed when the 
government was made, it would have established 
slavery as a permanent institution in all the States, 
whether they wanted it or not ; and the question for 
us to determine in Illinois now, as one of the free 
States, is whether or not we are willing, having be- 
come the majority section, to enforce a doctrine on 
the minority which we would have resisted with our 
heart's blood had it been attempted on us when we 
were in a minority. How has the South lost her 
power as the majority section in this Union, and 
how have the free States gained it, except under the 
operation of that principle which declares the right 
of the people of each State and each Territory to 
form and regulate their domestic institutions in 
their own way? It was under that principle that 
slavery was abolished in New Hampshire, Rhode 
Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and 
Pennsylvania; it was under that principle that one 
half of the slaveholding States became free; it was 
under that principle that the number of free States 
increased until, from being one out of twelve States, 
we have grown to be the majority of States of the 
whole Union, with the power to control the House 



Stephen A. Douglas 221 

of Representatives and Senate, and the power, con- 
sequently, to elect a President by Northern votes, 
without the aid of a Southern State. Having ob- 
tained this power under the operation of that great 
principle, are you now prepared to abandon the 
principle and declare that merely because we have 
the power you will wage a war against the Southern 
States and their institutions until you force them 
to abolish slavery everywhere? 

After having pressed these arguments home on 
Mr. Lincoln for seven weeks, publishing a number 
of my speeches, we met at Ottawa in joint discussion, 
and he then began to crawfish a little, and let him- 
self down. I there propounded certain questions to 
him. Amongst others, I asked him whether he 
would vote for the admission of any more slave 
States, in the event the people wanted them. He 
would not answer. I then told him that if he did 
not answer the question there, I would renew it at 
Freeport, and would then trot him down into Egypt, 
and again put it to him. Well, at Freeport, know- 
ing that the next joint discussion took place in 
Egypt, and being in dread of it, he did answer my 
question in regard to no more slave States in a 
mode which he hoped would be satisfactory to me, 
and accomplish the object he had in view. I will 
show you what his answer was. After saying that 
he was not pledged to the Republican doctrine of 
" no more slave States," he declared: 

" I state to you freely, frankly, that I should be ex- 
ceedingly sorry to ever be put in the position of having 



222 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

to pass upon that question. I should be exceedingly 
glad to know that there never would be another slave 
State admitted into this Union." 



Here permit me to remark, that I do not think 
the people will ever force him into a position against 
his will. He went on to say : 

" But I must add, in regard to this, that if slavery 
shall be kept out of the Territory during the Territorial 
existence of any one given Territory, and then the 
people should, having a fair chance and a clear field, 
when they come to adopt a constitution, if they should 
do the extraordinary thing of adopting a slave constitu- 
tion uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution 
among them, I see no alternative, if we own the country, 
but we must admit it into the Union." 

That answer Mr. Lincoln supposed w^ould satisfy 
the old-line Whigs, composed of Kentuckians and 
Virginians, down in the southern part of the State. 
Now, what does it amount to? I desired to know 
whether he would vote to allow Kansas to come into 
the Union with slavery or not, as her people desired. 
He would not answer, but in a roundabout way said 
that if slavery should be kept out of a Territory dur- 
ing the whole of its Territorial existence, and then 
the people, when they adopted a State Constitution, 
asked admission as a slave State, he supposed he 
would have to let the State come in. The case I 
put to him was an entirely different one. I desired 
to know whether he would vote to admit a State if 
Congress had not prohibited slavery in it during its 



Stephen A. Douglas 223 

Territorial existence, as Congress never pretended to 
do under Clay's Compromise measures of 1850. He 
would not answer, and I have not yet been able to 
get an answer from him. I have asked him whether 
he would vote to admit Nebraska if her people 
asked to come in as a State with a constitution 
recognizing slavery, and he refused to answer. I 
have put the question to him with reference to New 
Mexico, and he has not uttered a word in answer. 
I have enumerated the Territories, one after another, 
putting the same question to him with reference to 
each, and he has not said, and w^ll not say, whether, 
if elected to Congress, he will vote to admit any 
Territory now in existence with such a constitution 
as her people may adopt. He invents a case which 
does not exist, and cannot exist under this govern- 
ment, and answers it; but he will not answer the 
question I put to him in connection with any of the 
Territories now in existence. The contract we en- 
tered into with Texas when she entered the Union 
obliges us to allow four States to be formed out of 
the old State, and admitted with or without slavery, 
as the respective inhabitants of each may determine. 
I have asked Mr. Lincoln three times in our joint 
discussions whether he would vote to redeem that 
pledge, and he has never yet answered. He is as 
silent as the grave on the subject. He would rather 
answer as to a state of the case which will never 
arise than commit himself by telling what he would 
do in a case which would come up for his action 
soon after his election to Congress. Why can he not 
say whether he is willing to allow the people of each 



224 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

State to have slavery or not as they please, and to 
come into the Union, when they have the requisite 
population, as a slave or a free State as they de- 
cide? I have no trouble in answering the question, 
I have said everywhere, and now repeat it to you, 
that if the people of Kansas want a slave State they 
have a right, under the Constitution of the United 
States, to form such a State, and I will let them 
come into the Union with slavery or without, as 
they detemiine. If the people of any other Terri- 
tory desire slavery, let them have it. If they do 
not want it, let them prohibit it. It is their busi- 
ness, not mine. It is none of our business in Illinois 
whether Kansas is a free State or a slave State. 
It is none of your business in Missouri whether Kan- 
sas shall adopt slavery or reject it. It is the business 
of her people, and none of yours. The people of 
Kansas have as much right to decide that question 
for themselves as you have in Missouri to decide it 
for yourselves, or we in Illinois to decide it for 
ourselves. 

And here I may repeat what I have said in every 
speech I have made in Illinois, that I fought the 
Lecompton Constitution to its death not because of 
the slavery clause in it, but because it was not the 
act and deed of the people of Kansas. I said then 
in Congress, and I say now, that if the people of 
Kansas want a slave State, they have a right to 
have it. If they wanted the Lecompton Constitu- 
tion, they had a right to have it. I was opposed to 
that constitution because I did not believe that it 
was the act and deed of the people, but, on the con- 



Stephen A. Douglas 225 

trary, the act of a small, pitiful minority acting in 
the name of the majority. When at last it was 
determmed to send that constitution back to the 
people, and, accordingly, in August last, the ques- 
tion of admission under it was submitted to a popu- 
lar vote, the citizens rejected it by nearly ten to one, 
thus showing conclusively that I was right when I 
said that the Lecompton Constitution was not the 
act and deed of the people of Kansas, and did not 
embody their will. 

I hold that there is no power on earth, under our 
system of government, which has the right to force 
a constitution upon an unwilling people. Suppose 
that there had been a majority of ten to one in 
favor of slavery in Kansas, and suppose there had 
been an Abolition President and an Abolition Ad- 
ministration, and by some means the Abolitionists 
succeeded in forcing an Abolition constitution upon 
those slaveholding people, would the people of the 
South have submitted to that act for an instant? 
Well, if you of the South would not have submitted 
to it a day, how can you, as fair, honorable, and 
honest men, insist on putting a slave constitution on 
a people who desire a free State ? Your safety and 
ours depend upon both of us acting in good faith, 
and living up to that great principle which asserts 
the right of every people to form and regulate their 
domestic institutions to suit themselves, subject only 
to the Constitution of the United States. 

Most of the men who denounced my course on the 
Lecompton question objected to it, not because I 
was not right, but because they thought it expedient 



2 26 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

at that time, for the sake of keeping the party to- 
gether, to do wrong. I never knew the Democratic 
party to violate any one of its principles, out of 
policy or expediency, that it did not pay the debt 
with sorrow. There is no safety or success for our 
party unless we always do right, and trust the con- 
sequences to God and the people. I chose not to 
depart from principle for the sake of expediency on 
the Lecompton question, and I never intend to do 
it on that or any other question. 

But I am told that I would have been all right 
if I had only voted for the English bill after Le- 
compton was killed. You know a general pardon 
was granted to all political offenders on the Lecomp- 
ton question, provided they would only vote for the 
English bill. I did not accept the benefits of that 
pardon, for the reason that I had been right in the 
course I had pursued, and hence did not require any 
forgiveness. Let us see how the result has been 
worked out. English brought in his bill referring 
the Lecompton Constitution back to the people, 
with the provision that if it was rejected, Kansas 
should be kept out of the Union until she had the 
full ratio of population required for a member of 
Congress, — thus in effect declaring that if the people 
of Kansas would only consent to come into the 
Union under the Lecompton Constitution, and have 
a slave State when they did not want it, they should 
be admitted with a population of 35,000; but that 
if they were so obstinate as to insist upon having 
just such a constitution as they thought best, and 
to desire admission as a free State, then they should 



Stephen A. Douglas 227 

be kept out until they had 93,420 inhabitants. I 
then said, and I now repeat to you, that whenever 
Kansas has people enough for a slave State she has 
people enough for a free State. I was and am will- 
ing to adopt the rule that no State shall ever come 
into the Union until she has the full ratio of popula- 
tion for a member of Congress, provided that rule is 
made uniform. I made that proposition in the Senate 
last winter, but a majority of the senators would 
not agree to it; and I then said to them, If you 
will not adopt the general rule, I will not consent 
to make an exception of Kansas. 

I hold that it is a violation of the fundamental 
principles of this government to throw the weight of 
Federal power into the scale, either in favor of the 
free or the slave States. Equality among all the 
States of this Union is a fundamental principle in 
our political system. We have no more right to 
throw the weight of the Federal Government into the 
scale in favor of the slaveholding than the free 
States, and least of all should rur friends in the 
South consent for a moment that Congress should 
withhold its powers either way when they know that 
there is a majority against them in both Houses of 
Congress. 

Fellow-citizens, how have the supporters of the 
English bill stood up to their pledges not to admit 
Kansas until she obtained a population of 93,420 in 
the event she rejected the Lecompton Constitution? 
How? The newspapers inform us that English 
himself, whilst conducting his canvass for re-election, 
and in order to secure it, pledged himself to his 



2 28 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

constituents that if returned he would disregard his 
own bill and vote to admit Kansas into the Union with 
such population as she might have when she made 
application. We are informed that every Demo- 
cratic candidate for Congress in all the States where 
elections have recently been held was pledged against 
the English bill, with perhaps one or two exceptions. 
Now, if I had only done as these anti-Lecompton 
men who voted for the English bill in Congress, 
pledging themselves to refuse to admit Kansas if she 
refused to become a slave State until she had a 
population of 93,420, and then returned to their 
people, forfeited their pledge, and made a new 
pledge to admit Kansas at any time she applied, 
without regard to population, I would have had no 
trouble. You saw the whole power and patronage of 
the Federal Government wielded in Indiana, Ohio^ 
and Pennsylvania to re-elect anti-Lecompton men to 
Congress who voted against Lecompton, then voted 
for the English bill, and then denounced the English 
bill, and pledged themselves to their people to dis- 
regard it. My sin consists in not having given a 
pledge, and then in not having aftei'ward forfeited 
it. For that reason, in this State, every postmaster, 
every route agent, every collector of the ports, and 
every Federal office-holder forfeits his head the 
moment he expresses a preference for the Demo- 
cratic candidates against Lincoln and his Abolition 
associates. A Democratic Administration which we 
helped to bring into power deems it consistent with 
its fidelity to principle and its regard to duty to wield 
its power in this State in behalf of the Republican 



Stephen A. Douglas 229 

Abolition candidates in every county and every Con- 
gressional District against the Democratic party. 
All I have to say in reference to the matter is, that 
if that Administration have not regard enough for 
principle, if they are not sufficiently attached to the 
creed of the Democratic party, to bury forever their 
personal hostilities in order to succeed in carrying 
out our glorious principles, I have. I have no per- 
sonal difficulty with Mr. Buchanan or his Cabinet. 
He chose to make certain recommendations to Con- 
gress, as he had a right to do, on the Lecompton 
question. I could not vote in favor of them. I had 
as much right to judge for myself how I should vote 
as he had how he should recommend. He under- 
took to say to me, "If you do not vote as I tell you 
I will take off the heads of your friends." I replied 
to him, "You did not elect me. I represent Illinois, 
and I am accountable to Illinois, as my constituency, 
and to God ; but not to the President or to any other 
power on earth." 

And now this warfare is made on me because I 
would not surrender my convictions of duty, be- 
cause I would not abandon my constituency, and 
receive the orders of the executive authorities how 
I should vote in the Senate of the United States. I 
hold that an attempt to control the Senate on the 
part of the Executive is subversive of the principles 
of our Constitution. The Executive department is 
independent of the Senate, and the Senate is inde- 
pendent of the President. In matters of legislation 
the President has a veto on the action of the Senate, 
and in a]3pointments and treaties the Senate has a 



230 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

veto on the President. He has no more right to tell 
me how I shall vote on his appointments than I 
have to tell him whether he shall veto or approve a 
bill that the Senate has passed. Whenever you 
recognize the right of the Executive to say to a 
senator, "Do this, or I will take off the heads of your 
friends," you convert this government from a re- 
public into a despotism. Whenever you recognize 
the right of a President to say to a member of Con- 
gress, "Vote as I tell you, or I will bring a power to 
bear against you at home which will crush you," you 
destroy the independence of the representative, and 
convert him into a tool of Executive power. I 
resisted this invasion of the constitutional rights of 
a senator, and I intend to resist it as long as I have 
a voice to speak or a vote to give. Yet Mr. Buchanan 
cannot provoke me to abandon one iota of Demo- 
cratic principles out of revenge or hostility to his 
course. I stand by the platform of the Democratic 
party, and by its organization, and support its 
nominees. If there are any who choose to bolt, the 
fact only shows that they are not as good Democrats 
as I am. 

My friends, there never was a time when it was as 
important for the Democratic party, for all national 
men, to rally and stand together, as it is to-day. 
We find all sectional men giving up past differences 
and con tingling the one question of slavery; and 
when we find sectional men thus uniting, we should 
unite to resist them and their treasonable designs. 
Such was the case in 1850, when Clay left the quiet 
and peace of his home, and again entered upon pub- 



Stephen A. Douglas 231 

lie life to quell agitation and restore peace to a dis- 
tracted Union. Then we Democrats, with Cass at 
our head, welcomed Henry Clay, whom the whole 
nation regarded as having been preserved by God for 
the times. He became our leader in that great 
fight, and we rallied around him the same as the 
Whigs rallied around old Hickory in 1832 to put 
down nullification. Thus you see that whilst Whigs 
and Democrats fought fearlessly in old times about 
banks, the tariff, distribution, the specie circular, 
and the sub-treasury, all united as a band of brothers 
when the peace, harmony, or integrity of the Union 
was imperiled. It was so in 1850, when Aboli- 
tionism had even so far divided this country. North 
and South, as to endanger the peace of the Union; 
Whigs and Democrats united in establishing the 
Compromise measures of that year and restoring 
tranquillity and good feeling. These measures passed 
on the joint action of the two parties. They rest- 
ed on the great principle that the people of each 
State and each Territory should be left perfectly 
free to form and regulate their domestic institutions 
to suit themselves. You Whigs and we Democrats 
justified them in that principle. In 1854, when it 
became necessary to organize the Territories of 
Kansas and Nebraska, I brought forward the bill on 
the same principle. In the Kansas-Nebraska Bill 
you find it declared to be the true intent and mean- 
ing of the act not to legislate slavery into any State 
or Territory, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to 
leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and 
regulate their domestic institutions in their own 



232 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

way. I stand on that same platform in 1858 that 
I did in 1850, 1854, and 1856. The Washington 
Union, pretending to be the organ of the Administra- 
tion, in the number of the 5 th of this month devotes 
three columns and a half to establish these proposi- 
tions: first, that Douglas, in his Freeport speech, 
held the same doctrine that he did in his Nebraska 
Bill in 1854; second, that in 1854 Douglas justified 
the Nebraska Bill upon the ground that it was based 
upon the same principle as Clay's Compromise 
measures of 1850. The Union thus proved that 
Douglas was the same in 1858 that he was in 1856, 
1854, and 1850, and consequently argued that he was 
never a Democrat. Is it not funny that I was never 
a Democrat? There is no pretence that I have 
changed a hair's breadth. The Union proves by 
my speeches that I explained the Compromise 
measures of 1850 just as I do now, and that I ex- 
plained the Kansas and Nebraska Bill in 1854 just 
as I did in my Freeport speech, and yet says that I 
am not a Democrat, and cannot be trusted, because I 
have not changed during the whole of that time. It 
has occurred to me that in 1854 the author of the 
Kansas and Nebraska Bill was considered a pretty 
good Democrat. It has occurred to me that in 1856, 
when I was exerting every nerve and every energy 
for James Buchanan, standing on the same platform 
then that I do now, that I was a pretty good Demo- 
crat. They now tell me that I am not a Democrat, 
because I assert that the people of a Territory, as 
well as those of a State, have the right to decide for 
themselves whether slavery can or cannot exist in 



Stephen A. Douglas 233 

such Territory. Let me read what James Buchanan 
said on that point when he accepted the Democratic 
nomination for the presidency in 1856. In his letter 
of acceptance, he used the following language: 

"The recent legislation of Congress respecting domes- 
tic slavery, derived as it has been from the original and 
pure fountain of legitimate political power, the will of the 
majority, promises ere long to allay the dangerous ex- 
citement. This legislation is founded upon principles 
as ancient as free government itself, and, in accordance 
with them, has simply declared that the people of a 
Territory, like those of a State, shall decide for them- 
selves whether slaveiy shall or shall not exist within 
their limits." 

Dr. Hope will there find my answer to the question 
he propounded to me before I commenced speaking. 
Of course, no man will consider it an answer who is 
outside of the Democratic organization, bolts Demo- 
cratic nominations, and indirectly aids to put Aboli- 
tionists into power over Democrats. But whether 
Dr. Hope considers it an answer or not, every fair- 
minded man will see that James Buchanan has 
answered the question, and has asserted that the 
people of a Territory, like those of a State, shall 
decide for themselves whether slavery shall or shall 
not exist within their limits. I answer specifically 
if you want a further answer, and say that while, 
under the decision of the Supreme Court, as recorded 
in the opinion of Chief Justice Taney, slaves are 
property like all other property, and can be carried 
into any Territory of the United States the same as 



234 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

any other description of property, yet when you get 
them there they are subject to the local law of the 
Territory just like all other property. You will find 
in a recent speech delivered by that able and eloquent 
statesman Hon. Jefferson Davis, at Bangor, Maine, 
that he took the same view of this subject that I did 
in my Freeport speech. He there said: 

" If the inhabitants of any Territory should refuse to 
enact such laws and police regulations as would give 
security to their property or to his, it would be rendered 
more or less valueless in proportion to the difficulties of 
holding it without such protection. In the case of 
property in the labor of man, or what is usually called 
slave property, the insecurity would be so great that the 
owner could not ordinarily retain it. Therefore, though 
the right would remain, the remedy being withheld, it 
would follow that the owner would be practically de- 
barred, by the circumstances of the case, from taking 
slave property into a Territory where the sense of the 
inhabitants was opposed to its introduction. So much 
for the oft-repeated fallacy of forcing slavery upon any 
community." 

You will also find that the distinguished Speaker 
of the present House of Representatives, Hon. Jas. 
L. Orr, construed the Kansas and Nebraska Bill in 
this same way in 1856, and also that great intellect 
of the South, Alex. H. Stephens, put the same con- 
struction upon it in Congress that I did in my Free- 
port speech. The whole South are rallying to the 
support of the doctrine that if the people of a Terri- 
tory want slavery, they have a right to have it, and 



Stephen A. Douglas 235 

(f they do not want it, that no power on earth can 
force it upon them. I hold that there is no principle 
on earth more sacred to all the friends of freedom 
than that which says that no institution, no law, no 
constitution, should be forced on an unwilling peo- 
ple contrary to their wishes; and I assert that the 
Kansas and Nebraska Bill contains that principle. 
It is the great principle contained in that bill. It is 
the principle on which James Buchanan was made 
President. Without that principle, he never would 
have been made President of the United States. I 
will never violate or abandon that doctrine, if I have 
to stand alone. I have resisted the blandishments 
and threats of power on the one side, and seduction 
on the other, and have stood immovably for that 
principle, fighting for it when assailed by Northern 
mobs, or threatened by Southern hostility. I have 
defended it against the North and the South, and I 
will defend it against whoever assails it, and I will 
follow it wherever its logical conclusions lead me. I 
say to you that there is but one hope, one safety for 
this country, and that is to stand immovably by 
that principle which declares the right of each State 
and each Territory to decide these questions for 
themselves. This government was founded on that 
principle, and must be administered in the same 
sense in which it was founded. 

But the AboHtion party really think that under 
the Declaration of Independence the negro is equal 
to the white man, and that negro equality is an 
inalienable right conferred by the Almighty, and 
hence that all human laws in violation of it are null 



236 Lincoln and Douorlas Debates 



&' 



and void. With such men it is no use for me to 
argue. I hold that the signers of the Declaration of 
Independence had no reference to negroes at all when 
they declared all men to be created equal. They did 
not mean negroes, nor the savage Indians, nor the 
Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. 
They were speaking of white men. They alluded to 
men of European birth and European descent, — to 
white men, and to none others, — when they declared 
that doctrine. I hold that this government was 
established on the white basis. It was established 
by white men for the benefit of white men and their 
posterity forever, and should be administered by 
white men, and none others. But it does not follow 
by any means, that merely because the negro is not a 
citizen, and merely because he is not our equal, that, 
therefore, he should be a slave. On the contrary, 
it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro 
race, and to all other dependent races, all the rights, 
all the privileges, and all the immunities which they 
can exercise consistently with the safety of society. 
Humanity requires that we should give them all 
these privileges; Christianity commands that we 
should extend those privileges to them. The ques- 
tion then arises. What are those privileges, and 
what is the nature and extent of them ? My answer 
is, that that is a question which each State must 
answer for itself. We in Illinois have decided it for 
ourselves. We tried slavery, kept it up for twelve 
years, and, finding that it was not profitable, we 
abolished it for that reason, and became a free State. 
We adopted in its stead the policy that a negro in 



Stephen A. Douglas 237 

this State shall not be a slave and shall not be a 
citizen. We have a right to adopt that policy. For 
my part, I think it is a wise and sound polic}^ for us. 
You in Missouri must judge for yourselves whether 
it is a wise policy for you. If you choose to follow 
our example, very good; if you reject it, still well, — 
it is your business, not ours. So with Kentucky. 
Let Kentucky adopt a policy to suit herself. If we 
do not like it we will keep away from it; and if she 
does not like ours, let her stay at home, mind her own 
business, and let us alone. If the people of all the 
States will act on that great principle, and each State 
mind its own business, attend to its own affairs, take 
care of its own negroes, and not meddle with its 
neighbors, then there will be peace between the 
North and the South, the East and the West, through- 
out the whole Union. 

Why can we not thus have peace? Why should 
we thus allow a sectional party to agitate this coun- 
try, to array the North against the South, and con- 
vert us into enemies instead of friends, merely that 
a few ambitious men may ride into power on a 
sectional hobby? How long is it since these ambi- 
tious Northern men wished for a sectional organiza- 
tion? Did any one of them dream of a sectional 
party as long as the North was the weaker section 
and the South the stronger ? Then all were opposed 
to sectional parties; but the moment the North 
obtained the majority in the House and Senate by 
the admission of California, and could elect a Presi- 
dent without the aid of Southern votes, that moment 
ambitious Northern men formed a scheme to excite 



238 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

the North against the South, and make the people be 
governed in their votes by geographical lines, think- 
ing that the North, being the stronger section, would 
outvote the South, and consequently they, the lead- 
ers, would ride into office on a sectional hobby. I 
am told that my hour is out. It was very short. 



MR. LINCOLN S REPLY. 

Ladies and Gentlemen : I have been somewhat, 
in my own mind, complimented by a large portion 
of Judge Douglas's speech, — I mean that portion 
which he devotes to the controversy between him- 
self and the present Administration. This is the 
seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have met in 
these joint discussions, and he has been gradually 
improving in regard to his war with the Administra- 
tion. At Quincy, day before yesterday, he was a 
little more severe upon the Administration than I 
had heard him upon any occasion, and I took pains 
to compHment him for it. I then told him to give 
it to them with all the power he had ; and as some 
of them were present, I told them I would be very 
much obliged if they would give it to him in about the 
same way. I take it he has now vastly improved 
upon the attack he made then upon the Administra- 
tion. I flatter myself he has really taken my advice 
on this subject. All I can say now is to re-commend 
to him and to them what I then commended, — to 
prosecute the war against one another in the most 
vigorous manner. I say to them again: "Go it, 
husband! — Go it, bear!" 



Abraham Lincoln 239 

There is one other thing I will mention before I 
leave this branch of the discussion, — although I do 
not consider it much of my business, anyway. I 
refer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he 
undertakes to involve Mr. Buchanan in an incon- 
sistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, 
from which he undertakes to involve him in an in- 
consistency; and he gets something of a cheer for 
having done so. I would only remind the Judge 
that while he is very valiantly fighting for the Ne- 
braska Bill and the repeal of the Missouri Com- 
promise, it has been but a little while since he was 
the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I 
want to know if Buchanan has not as much right 
to be inconsistent as Douglas has? Has Douglas 
the exclusive right, in this country, of being on all 
sides of all questions ? Is nobody allowed that high 
privilege but himself? Is he to have an entire mon- 
opoly on that subject? 

So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to 
me, or so far as it was about me, it is my business to 
pay some attention to it. I have heard the Judge 
state two or three times what he has stated to-day, — 
that in a speech which I made at Springfield, Illinois, 
I had in a very especial manner complained that the 
Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided 
that a negro could never be a citizen of the United 
States. I have omitted by some accident heretofore 
to analyze this statement, and it is required of me 
to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I 
never have complained especially of the Dred Scott 
decision because it held that a negro could not be a 



240 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

citizen, and the Judge is always wrong when he says 
I ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, 
and I will thank him or any of his friends to show 
where I said that a negro should be a citizen, and 
complained especially of the Dred Scott decision 
because it declared he could not be one. I have 
done no such thing; and Judge Douglas, so per- 
sistently insisting that I have done so, has strongly 
impressed me with the belief of a predetermination 
on his part to misrepresent me. He could not get his 
foundation for insisting that I was in favor of this 
negro equality anywhere else as well as he could by 
assuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this 
audience what is true in regard to that matter; and 
the means by which they may correct me if I do not 
tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. 
I spoke of the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield 
speech, and I was then endeavoring to prove that 
the Dred Scott decision was a portion of a system 
or scheme to make slavery national in this country. 
I pointed out what things had been decided by the 
court. I mentioned as a fact that they had decided 
that a negro could not be a citizen; that they had 
done so, as I supposed, to deprive the negro, under 
all circumstances, of the remotest possibility of ever 
becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of a citi- 
zen of the United States under a certain clause of the 
Constitution. I stated that, without making any 
complaint of it at all. I then went on and stated 
the other points decided in th^ case; namely, that 
the bringing of a negro into the State of Illinois and 
holding him in slavery for two years here was a 



Abraham Lincoln 241 

matter in regard to which they would not decide 
whether it would make him free or not; that they 
decided the further point that taking him into a 
United States Territory where slavery was prohibited 
by Act of Congress did not make him free, because 
that Act of Congress, as they held, was unconstitu- 
tional. I mentioned these three things as making 
up the points decided in that case. I mentioned 
them in a lump, taken in connection with the intro- 
duction of the Nebraska Bill, and the amendment of 
Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right 
of the people of the Territories to exclude slavery, 
which was voted down by the friends of the bill. I 
mentioned all these things together, as evidence 
tending to prove a combination and conspiracy to 
make the institution of slavery national. In that 
connection and in that way I mentioned the decision 
on the point that a negro could not be a citizen, and 
in no other connection. 

Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful 
fabrication of my purpose to introduce a perfect 
social and political equality between the white and 
black races. His assertion that I made an "especial 
objection" (that is his exact language) to the deci- 
sion on this account is untrue in point of fact. 

Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry 
Clay has been alluded to, I desire to place myself, 
in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly right before 
this people as may be. I am quite aware what the 
Judge's object is here by all these allusions. He 
knows that we are before an audience having strong 
sympathies southward, by relationship, place of 



242 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

birth, and so on. He desires to place me in an 
extremely Abolition attitude. He read upon a 
former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day 
to a portion of a speech which I delivered in Chicago. 
In his quotations from that speech, as he has made 
them upon former occasions, the extracts were taken 
in such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the 
definition of what is called garbling, — taking portions 
of a speech which, when taken by themselves, do not 
present the entire sense of the speaker as expressed 
at the time. I propose, therefore, out of that same 
speech, to show how one portion of it which he 
skipped over (taking an extract before and an extract 
after) will give a different idea, and the true idea I 
intended to convey. It will take me some little tim.e 
to read it, but I believe I will occupy the time that 
way. 

You have heard him frequently allude to my con- 
troversy with him in regard to the Declaration of 
Independence. I confess that I have had a struggle 
with Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try 
briefly to place myself right in regard to it on this 
occasion. I said— and it is between the extracts 
Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put 
in his published speeches: 

" It may be argued that there are certain conditions 
that make necessities and impose them upon us, and to 
the extent that a necessity is imposed upon a man he 
must submit to it. I think that was the condition in 
which wc found ourselves when we established this 
government. We had slaves among us, we could not 
get our Constitution unless wc permitted them to remain 



Abraham Lincoln 243 

in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure 
if we grasped for more; and having by necessity sub- 
mitted to that much, it does not destroy the principle 
that is the charter of our liberties. Let the charter re- 
main as our standard." 

Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly 
as Judge Douglas against the disposition to interfere 
with the existing institution of slavery. You hear 
me read it from the same speech from which he takes 
garbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me 
a disposition to interfere with the institution of 
slavery, and establish a perfect social and political 
equality between negroes and white people. 

Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present 
one other extract from a speech of mine, more than a 
year ago, at Springfield, in discussing this very same 
question, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground 
that negroes were not included in the Declaration of 
Independence: 

" I think the authors of that notable instrument in- 
tended to include all men, but they did not mean to de- 
clare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean 
to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral 
development, or social capacity. They defined with 
tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men 
created equal, — equal in certain inalienable rights, among 
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 
This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean 
to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually 
enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to 
confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no 
power to confer such a boon. They meant simply to 



244 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

declare the right, so that the enforcement of it might 
follow as fast as circumstances should permit. 

"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free 
society which should be familiar to all, — constantly 
looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though 
never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and 
thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, 
and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all 
people, of all colors, everywhere." 

There again are the sentiments I have expressed 
in regard to the Declaration of Independence upon 
a former occasion, — sentiments v^hich have been put 
in print and read wherever anybody cared to know 
what so humble an individual as myself chose to say 
in regard to it. 

At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to 
Judge Douglas, that three years ago there never 
had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the 
whole world, who had said that the Declaration of 
Independence did not include negroes in the term 
"all men." I reassert it to-day. I assert that 
Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the 
whole records of the country, and it will be a matter 
of great astonishment to me if they shall be able to 
find that one human being three years ago had ever 
uttered the astounding sentiment that the term "all 
men" in the Declaration did not include the negro. 
Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more 
than thiee years ago there were men who, finding 
this assertion constantly in the way of their schemes 
to bring about the ascendency and perpetuation of 
slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Cal- 



Abraham Lincoln 245 

houn and all the politicians of his school denied the 
truth of the Declaration. I know that it ran along 
in the mouth of some Southern men for a period of 
years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather 
forcible, declaration of Pettit of Indiana, upon the 
floor of the United States Senate, that the Declara- 
tion of Independence was in that respect "a self- 
evident lie," rather than a self-evident truth. But 
I say, with a perfect knowledge of all this hawking 
at the Declaration without directly attacking it, 
that three years ago there never had lived a man 
who had ventured to assail it in the sneaking way of 
pretending to believe it, and then asserting it did not 
include the negro. I believe the first man who ever 
said it was Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott 
case, and the next to him was our friend Stephen A. 
Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of 
the entire party. I would like to call upon his friends 
everywhere to consider how they have come in so 
short a time to view this matter in a way so entirely 
different from their former belief; to ask whether 
they are not being borne along by an irresistible 
current, — whither, they know not. 

In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last 
week, I see that some man in Chicago has got up a 
letter, addressed to the Chicago Times, to show, as he 
professes, that somebody had said so before ; and he 
signs himself "An Old-Line Whig," if I remember 
correctly. In the first place, I would say he was not 
an old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with 
old-line Whigs from the origin to the end of that 
party ; I became pretty well acquainted with them, 



246 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

and I know they always had some sense, whatever 
else you could ascribe to them. I know there never 
was one who had not more sense than to try to show 
by the evidence he produces that some men had, 
prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not 
included in the term "all men" in the Declaration of 
Independence. What is the evidence he produces? 
I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see 
what he offers by way of showing that somebody 
more than three years ago had said negroes were not 
included in the Declaration. He brings forward 
part of a speech from Henry Clay, — the part of the 
speech of Henry Clay which I used to bring forward 
to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we are sur- 
rounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of 
Mr. Clay, and they will be glad to hear anything 
from that authority. While he was in Indiana a 
man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and 
he (Mr. Clay) made a speech in answer to it, which I 
suppose he carefully wrote out himself and caused 
to be published. I have before me an extract from 
that speech which constitutes the evidence this pre- 
tended "Old-Line Whig" at Chicago brought for- 
ward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro 
was included in the Declaration of Independence. 
Hear what Mr. Clay said: 

"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in 
Indiana to liberate the slaves under my care in Ken- 
tucky ? It is a general declaration in the act announcing 
to the world the independence of the thirteen American 
colonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an 
abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that 



Abraham Lincoln 247 

declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction 
of society and in organized societies, to keep it in view as 
a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehend 
that in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be 
formed, was or can the equality asserted among the 
members of the human race be practically enforced and 
carried out. There are portions, large portions, — 
women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, — 
that will always probably remain subject to the govern- 
ment of another portion of the community. 

" That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its 
import, was made by the delegations of the thirteen 
States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long 
existed, and was established by law. It was introduced 
and forced upon the colonies by the paramount law of 
England. Do you believe that in making that declara- 
tion the States that concurred in it intended that it 
should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the 
slaves within their respective limits? Would Virginia 
and other Southern States have ever united in a declara- 
tion which was to be interpreted into an abolition of 
slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen 
colonies entertain such a design or expectation? To im- 
pute such a secret and unavowed purpose, would be to 
charge a political fraud upon the noblest band of patriots 
that ever assembled in council, — a fraud upon the Con- 
federacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of 
those States whose Constitution not only recognized the 
lawfulness of slavery, but permitted the importation of 
slaves from Africa until the year 1808." 

This is the entire quotation brought forward to 
prove that somebody previous to three years ago 
had said the negro was not included in the term "all 



248 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

men" in the Declaration. How does it do so? In 
what way has it a tendency to prove that ? Mr. Clay 
says it is true as an abstract principle that all men are 
created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it 
in all cases. He illustrates this by bringing forward 
the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, 
with whom it cannot be enforced; but he says it is 
true as an abstract principle in the organization of 
society as well as in organized society and it should be 
kept in view as a fundamental principle. Let me 
read a few words more before I add some comments 
of my own. Mr. Clay says, a little further on: 

" I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to 
the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, 
and deeply lament that we have derived it from the 
parental government and from our ancestors. I wish 
every slave in the United States was in the country of 
his ancestors. But here they are, and the question is. 
How can they be best dealt with? If a state of nature 
existed, and we were about to lay the foundations of so- 
ciety, no man would he more strongly opposed than I should 
be to incorporate the institution of slavery among its ele- 
ments y 

Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, 
in this same extract, brought forward to prove" that 
Mr. Clay held that the negro was not included in the 
Declaration of Independence, is no such statement 
on his part, but the declaration that it is a great 
fundamental truth which should be constantly kept 
in view in the organization of society and in societies 
already organized. But if I say a word about it; if 



Abraham Lincoln 249 

I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, 
to keep it in view; if, in this "organized society," 
I ask to have the public eye turned upon it ; if I ask, 
in relation to the organization of new Territories, 
that the public eye should be turned upon it, — ■ 
forthwith I am vilified as you hear me to-day. What 
have I done that I have not the license of Henry 
Cla3^'s illustrious example here in doing? Have I 
done aught that I have not his authority for, while 
maintaining that in organizing new Territories and 
societies this fundamental principle should be re- 
garded, and in organized society holding it up to the 
public view and recognizing what he recognized as 
the great principle of free government? 

And when this new principle— this new proposition 
that no human being ever thought of three years ago 
— is brought forward, / combat it as having an evil 
tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as hav- 
ing a tendency to dehumanize the negro, to take 
away from him the right of ever striving to be a man. 
I combat it as being one of the thousand things con- 
stantly done in these days to prepare the public mind 
to make property, and nothing but property, of the 
negro in all the States of this Union. 

But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this 
part of the discussion, to ask attention to. I have 
read and I repeat the words of Henry Clay: 

" I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to 
the institution of slavery. I look upon it as a great evil, 
and deeply lament that we have derived it from the 
parental government and from our ancestors. I wish 
every slave in the United States was in the country of 



250 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

his ancestors. But here they are; the question is, How 
can they best be dealt with? If a state of nature ex- 
isted, and we were about to lay the foundations of 
society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I 
should be to incorporate the institution of slavery among 
its elements." 

The principle upon which I have insisted in this 
canvass is in relation to laying the foundations of new 
societies. I have never sought to apply these 
principles to the old States for the purpose of abolish- 
ing slavery in those States. It is nothing but a 
miserable perversion of what I have said, to assume 
that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave 
State, shall emancipate her slaves ; I have proposed 
no such thing. But when Mr, Clay says that in 
laying the foundations of society in our Territories 
where it does not exist, he would be opposed to the 
introduction of slavery as an element, I insist that 
we have his warrant — ^his license — for insisting upon 
the exclusion of that element which he declared in 
such strong and emphatic language was most hateful 
to him. 

Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield 
speech in which I said "a house divided against itself 
cannot stand." The Judge has so often made the 
entire quotation from that speech that I can make 
it from memory. I used this language : 

" We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was 
initiated with the avowed object and confident promise 
of putting an end to the slavery agitation. Under the 
operation of this policy, that agitation has not only not 



Abraham Lincoln 251 

ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion 
it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and 
passed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand.' 
I believe this government cannot endure permanently, 
half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to 
fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will 
become all one thing, or all the other. Either the op- 
ponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, 
and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief 
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its 
advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike 
lawful in all the States, — old as well as new, North as well 
as South." 

That extract and the sentiments expressed in it 
have been extremely offensive to Judge Douglas. He 
has warred upon them as Satan wars upon the Bible. 
His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are 
ni}' views upon it in brief: 

I said we were now far into the fifth year since a 
policy was initiated with the avowed object and 
confident promise of putting an end to the slavery 
agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska Bill 
w^as brought forward four years ago last January, 
was it not for the "avowed object" of putting an 
end to the slavery agitation? We were to have no 
more agitation in Congress; it was all to be banished 
to the Territories. By the way, I will remark here 
that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of compliment- 
ing Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crittenden has 
said there was a falsehood in that whole business, 
for there was no slavery agitation at that time to allay. 
Wc were for a little while quiet on the troublesome 



252 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

thing, and that very allaying plaster of Judge 
Douglas's stirred it up again. But was it not under- 
stood or intimated with the "confident promise" of 
putting an end to the slavery agitation? Surely it 
was. In every speech you heard Judge Douglas 
make, until he got into this "imbroglio," as they call 
it, with the Administration about the Lecompton 
Constitution, every speech on that Nebraska Bill was 
full of his felicitations that we were just at the end of 
the slaver}^ agitation. The last tip of the last joint 
of the old serpent's tail was just drawing out of view. 
But has it proved so? I have asserted that under 
that policy that agitation "has not only not ceased, 
but has constantly augmented." When w^as there 
ever a greater agitation in Congress than last winter ? 
When was it as great in the country as to-day? 
' There was a collateral object in the introduction 
of that Nebraska policy, which was to clothe the 
people of the Territories with a superior degree of 
self-government, beyond what they had ever had 
before. The first object and the main one of con- 
ferring upon the people a higher degree of "self- 
government" is a question of fact to be determined 
by you in answer to a single question. Have you 
ever heard or known of a people anywhere on earth 
who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its 
use, the people of Kansas had with this same right 
of "self-government"? In its main policy and in 
its collateral object, it has been nothing hut a liv- 
ing, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till 
to-day. 

I have intimated that I thought the agitation 



Abraham Lincoln 253 

would not cease until a crisis should have been 
reached and passed. I have stated in what way I 
thought it would be reached and passed. I have 
said that it might go one way or the other. We 
might, by arresting the further spread of it, and 
placing it where the fathers originally placed it, put 
it where the public mind should rest in the belief 
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. 
Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed 
forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the 
States, old as well as new. North as well as South. I 
have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the further 
spread of it may be arrested, and that it may be 
placed where the public mind shall rest in the belief 
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I have 
expressed that as my wish. I entertain the opinion, 
upon evidence sufficient to my mind, that the fathers 
of this government placed that institution where the 
public mind did rest in the belief that it was in the 
course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they 
made provision that the source of slavery — the 
African slave-trade — should be cut off at the end of 
twenty years? Why did they make provision that 
in all the new territory we owned at that time 
slavery should be forever inhibited? Why stop its 
spread in one direction, and cut off its source in 
another, if they did not look to its being placed in 
the course of its ultimate extinction ? 

Again : the institution of slavery is only mentioned 
in the Constitution of the United States two or three 
times, and in neither of these cases does the word 
"slavery" or "negro race" occur; but covert 



254 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

language is used each time, and for a purpose full of 
significance. What is the language in regard to the 
prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs in 
about this way: "The migration or importation of 
such persons as any of the States now existing shall 
think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the 
Congress prior to the year one thousand eight 
hundred and eight." 

The next allusion in the Constitution to the ques- 
tion of slavery and the black race is on the subject of 
the basis of representation, and there the language 
used is: 

" Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned 
among the several States which may be included within 
this Union, according to their respective numbers, which 
shall be determined by adding to the whole number of 
free persons, including those bound to service for a term 
of years, and excluding Indians not taxed,— three-fifths 
of all other persons." 

It says "persons," not slaves, not negroes; but 
this "three-fifths" can be applied to no other class 
among us than the negroes. 

Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of 
fugitive slaves, it is said : "No person held to service 
or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping 
into another, shall in consequence of any law or regu- 
lation therein be discharged from such service or 
labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the 
party to whom such service or labor may be due." 
There again there is no mention of the word ' ' negro 
or of slavery. In all three of these places, being the 



Abraham Lincoln 255 

only allusions to slavery in the instrument, covert 
language is used. Language is used not suggesting 
that slavery existed or that the black race were 
among us. And I understand the contemporaneous 
history of those times to be that covert language was 
used with a purpose, and that purpose was that in 
our Constitution, which it was hoped and is still 
hoped will endure forever, — when it should be read 
by intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution 
of slavery had passed from among us, — there should 
be nothing on the face of the great charter of liberty 
suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had 
ever existed among us. This is part of the evidence 
that the fathers of the government expected and 
intended the institution of slavery to come to an end. 
They expected and intended that it should be in the 
course of ultimate extinction. And when I say that 
I desire to see the further spread of it arrested, I 
only say I desire to see that done which the fathers 
have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed 
where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is 
in the course of ultimate extinction, I only say I 
desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is not 
true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, 
made this government part slave and part free. 
Understand the sense in which he puts it. He 
assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself, 
— ^was introdticed by the framers of the Constitution. 
The exact truth is, that they found the institution 
existing among us, and they left it as they found it. 
But in making the government they left this institu- 
tion with many clear marks of disapprobation upon 



256 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

it. They found slavery among them, and they left 
it among them because of the difficulty — the abso- 
lute impossibility — of its immediate removal. And 
when Judge Douglas asks me why we cannot let it 
remain part slave and part free, as the fathers of the 
government made it, he asks a question based upon 
an assumption which is itself a falsehood; and I 
turn upon him and ask him the question, when the 
policy that the fathers of the government had 
adopted in relation to this element among us was 
the best policy in the world, the only wise policy, 
the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon 
that will ever give us peace, unless this dangerous 
element masters us all and becomes a national insti- 
tution, — / turn upon him and ask him why he could 
not leave it alone. I turn and ask him why he was 
driven to the necessity of introducing a new policy 
in regard to it. He has himself said he introduced 
a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 2 2d 
of March of the present year, 1858. I ask him why 
he could not let it remain where our fathers placed 
it. I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why 
we shall not again place this institution upon the 
basis on which the fathers left it. I ask you, when 
he infers that I am in favor of setting the free and 
slave States at war, when the institution was placed 
in that attitude by those who made the Constitution, 
did they make any war? If we had no war out of it 
when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief 
that we shall have war out of it if we return to that 
policy? Have we had any peace upon this matter 
springing from any other basis ? I maintain that we 



Abraham Lincoln 257 

have not. I have proposed nothing more than a 
return to the poUcy of the fathers. 

I confess, when I propose a certain measure of 
pohcy, it is not enough for me that I do not intend 
anything evil in the result, but it is incumbent on me 
to show that it has not a tendency to that result. I 
have met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I 
have not only made the declaration that I do not 
mean to produce a conflict between the States, but 
I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think 
I have shown to the minds of fair men, that I pro- 
pose nothing but what has a most peaceful tendency. 
The quotation that I happened to make in that 
Springfield speech, that "a house divided against 
itself cannot stand," and which has proved so offen- 
sive to the Judge, was part and parcel of the same 
thing. He tries to show that variety in the domestic 
institutions of the different States is necessary and 
indispensable. I do not dispute it. I have no con- 
troversy with Judge Douglas about that. I shall 
very readily agree with him that it would be foolish 
for us to insist upon having a cranberry law here in 
Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because they 
have a cranberry law in Indiana, where they have 
cranberries. I should insist that it would be ex- 
ceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia the right 
to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, 
because we want no such laws here. I understand, 
I hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas or anybody 
else, that the variety in the soil and climate and 
face of the country, and consequent variety in the 
industrial pursuits and productions of a country, 



258 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

require systems of law conforming to this variety in 
the natural features of the country. I understand 
quite as well as Judge Douglas that if we here raise a 
barrel of flour more than we want, and the Louis- 
ianians raise a barrel of sugar more than they want, 
it is of mutual advantage to exchange. That pro- 
duces commerce, brings us together, and makes us 
better friends. We like one another the more for it. 
And I understand as well as Judge Douglas, or any- 
body else, that these mutual accommodations are 
the cements which bind together the different parts 
of this Union; that instead of being a thing to 
"divide the house," — figuratively expressing the 
Union, — they tend to sustain it; they are the props 
of the house, tending always to hold it up. 

But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is 
any parallel between these things and this institu- 
tion of slavery? I do not see that there is any 
parallel at all between them. Consider it. When 
have we had any difficulty or quarrel amongst our- 
selves about the cranberry laws of Indiana, or the 
oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of 
Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, 
and Illinois flour? When have we had any quarrels 
over these things ? When have we had perfect peace 
in regard to this thing which I say is an element of 
discord in this Union? We have sometimes had 
peace, but when was it? It was when the institu- 
tion of slavery remained quiet where it was. We 
have had difficulty and turmoil whenever it has made 
a struggle to spread itself where it was not. I ask, 
then, if experience does not speak in thunder-tones. 



Abraham Lincoln 259 

telling us that the policy which has given peace to 
the country heretofore, being returned to, gives the 
greatest promise of peace again. You may say, and 
Judge Douglas has intimated the same thing, that 
all this difficulty in regard to the institution of 
slavery is the mere agitation of office-seekers and 
ambitious Northern politicians. He thinks we want 
to get "his place," I suppose. I agree that there are 
office-seekers amongst us. The Bible says some- 
where that we are desperately selfish. I think we 
would have discovered that fact without the Bible. 
I do not claim that I am any less so than the average 
of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish 
than Judge Douglas. 

But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation 
we have in regard to this institution of slavery spring 
from office-seeking, from the mere ambition of 
politicians? Is that the truth? How many times 
have w^e had danger from this question? Go back 
to the day of the Missouri Compromise. Go back to 
the Nullification question, at the bottom of which 
lay this same slavery question. Go back to the time 
of the annexation of Texas. Go back to the troubles 
that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will find 
that every time, with the single exception of the 
Nullification question, they sprung from an endeavor 
to spread this institution. There never was a party 
in the history of this country, and there probably 
never will be, of sufficient strength to disturb the 
general peace of the country. Parties themselves 
may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet 
it extends not beyond the parties themselves. But 



26o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

does not this question make a disturbance outside of 
political circles ? Does it not enter into the churches 
and rend them asunder? What divided the great 
Methodist Church into two parts, North and South? 
What has raised this constant disturbance in every 
Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What 
disturbed the Unitarian Church in this very city two 
years ago? What has jarred and shaken the great 
American Tract Society recently, not yet splitting it, 
but sure to divide it in the end ? Is it not this same 
mighty, deep-seated power that somehow operates 
on the minds of men, exciting and stirring them up 
in every avenue of society,— in politics, in religion, 
in literature, in morals, in all the manifold relations 
of life? Is this the work of poUticians? Is that 
irresistible power, which for fifty years has shaken 
the government and agitated the people, to be stilled 
and subdued by pretending that it is an exceedingly 
simple thing, and we ought not to talk about it ? If 
you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, 
I assure you I will quit before the}^ have half done so. 
But where is the philosophy or statesmanship which 
assumes that you can quiet that disturbing element 
in our society which has disturbed us for more than 
half a century, which has been the only serious 
danger that has threatened our institutions, — I say, 
where is the philosophy or the statesmanship based 
on the assumption that we are to quit talking about 
it, and that the public mind is all at once to cease 
being agitated by it? Yet this is the policy here in 
the North that Douglas is advocating, — that we are 
to care nothing about it! I ask you if it is not a 



Abraham Lincoln 261 

false philosophy. Is it not a false statesmanship 
that undertakes to build up a system of policy upon 
the basis of caring nothing about the very thing that 
everybody does care the most about — a thing which all ex- 
perience has shown we care a very great deal about ? 

The Judge alludes very often in the course of his 
remarks to the exclusive right which the States have 
to decide the whole thing for themselves. I agree 
with him very readily that the different States have 
that right. He is but fighting a man of straw when 
he assumes that I am contending against the right of 
the States to do as they please about it. Our con- 
troversy with him is in regard to the new Territories. 
We agree that when the States come in as States 
they have the right and the power to do as they 
please. We have no power as citizens of the free 
States, or in our Federal capacity as members of the 
Federal Union through the General Government, to 
disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We 
profess constantly that we have no more inclination 
than belief in the power of the government to dis- 
turb it; yet we are driven constantly to defend our- 
selves from the assumption that we are warring upon 
the rights of the States. What I insist upon is, that 
the new Territories shall be kept free from it while 
in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes 
that we have no interest in them, — that we have no 
right whatever to interfere. I think we have some 
interest. I think that as white men we have. Do 
we not wish for an outlet for our surplus population, 
if I may so express myself? Do we not feel an inter- 
est in getting to that outlet with such institutions 



262 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

as we would like to have prevail there ? If you go to 
the Territory opposed to slavery, and another man 
comes upon the same ground with his slave, upon the 
assumption that the things are equal, it turns out 
that he has the equal right all his way, and you have 
no part of it your way. If he goes in and makes it a 
slave Territory, and by consequence a slave State, 
is it not time that those who desire to have it a free 
State were on equal ground ? Let me suggest it in a 
different way. How many Democrats are there 
about here ["A thousand"] who have left slave 
States and come into the free State of Illinois to get 
rid of the institution of slavery ? [Another voice : 'A 
thousand and one."] I reckon there are a thousand 
and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now 
advocating had prevailed when this country was in a 
Territorial condition, where would you have gone to 
get rid of it? Where would you have found your 
free State or Territory to go to? And when here- 
after, for any cause, the people in this place shall 
desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of the 
institution, where will they find the place to go to ? 

Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this 
question as to whether there is a right or wrong in 
enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our new Terri- 
tories being in such a condition that white men may 
find a home, — may find some spot where they can 
better their condition; where they can settle upon 
new soil and better their condition in life. I am in 
favor of this, not merely (I must say it here as I have 
elsewhere) for our own people who are bom amongst 
us, but as an outlet for free white people everywhere — 



Abraham Lincoln 263 

the world over — in which Hans, and Baptiste, and 
Patrick, and all other men from all the world, may 
find new homes and better their conditions in Hfe. 

I have stated upon former occasions, and I may 
as well state again, what I understand to be the real 
issue in this controversy between Judge Douglas and 
myself. On the point of my wanting to make war 
between the free and the slave States, there has 
been no issue between us. So, too, when he assumes 
that I am in favor of introducing a perfect social and 
political equahty between the white and black races. 
These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has 
tried to force the controversy. There is no founda- 
tion in truth for the charge that I maintain either of 
these propositions. The real issue in this contro- 
versy — the one pressing upon every mind — is the 
sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon the 
institution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class 
that docs not look upon it as a wrong. The sentiment 
that contemplates the institution of slavery in this 
country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republi- 
can party. It is the sentiment around which all 
their actions, all their arguments, circle, from which 
all their propositions radiate. They look upon it as 
being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while 
they contemplate it as such, they nevertheless have 
due regard for its actual existence among us, and the 
difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactory way, 
and to all the constitutional obligations thrown about 
it. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a 
policy in regard to it that looks to its not creating 
any more danger. They insist that it should, as far 



264 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the 
methods of treating it as a wrong is to make provision 
that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy 
that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at some time, 
as being wrong. These are the views they entertain 
in regard to it as I understand them; and all their 
sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, 
are brought within this range. I have said, and I 
repeat it here, that if there be a man amongst us who 
does not think that the institution of slavery is wrong 
in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he 
is misplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if 
there be a man amongst us who is so impatient of it 
as a wrong as to disregard its actual presence am.ong 
us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in a 
satisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional 
obligations thrown about it, that man is misplaced 
if he is on our platform. We disclaim sympathy 
with him in practical action. He is not placed 
properly with us. 

On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and 
limiting its spread, let me say a word. Has anything 
ever threatened the existence of this Union save and 
except this very institution of slavery? What is it 
that we hold most dear amongst us? Our own 
liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatened 
our liberty and prosperity, save and except this in- 
stitution of slavery? If this is true, how do you pro- 
pose to improve the condition of things by enlarging 
slavery, — ^by spreading it out and making it bigger? 
You may have a wen or cancer upon your j^erson, 
and not be able to cut it out, lest you bleed to death; 



Abraham Lincoln 265 

but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it and 
spread it over your whole body. That is no proper 
way of treating what you regard a wrong. You see 
this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong, — 
restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go 
into new countries where it has not already existed. 
That is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the 
way in which the fathers themselves set us the 
example. 

On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment 
which treats it as not being wrong. That is the 
Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to 
say that every man who stands within that range 
positively asserts that it is right. That class will 
include all who positively assert that it is right, and 
all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent 
and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two 
classes of men fall within the general class of those 
who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there 
be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a 
Democrat, can consider himself "as much opposed 
to slavery as anybody," I would like to reason with 
him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other 
thing that you consider as a wrong do you deal with 
as you deal with that ? Perhaps you say it is wrong, 
but your leader never does, and you quarrel with any- 
body who says it is wrong. Although you pretend to 
say so yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with 
it as a wrong. You must not say anything about it 
in the free States, because it is not here. You must 
not say anything about it in the slave States, 
because it is there. You must not say anything about 



266 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has 
nothing to do with it. You must not say anything 
about it in politics, because that will disturb the 
security of "my place/' There is no place to talk 
about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself 
it is a wrong. But, finally, you will screw yourself 
up to the belief that if the people of the slave States 
should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on 
the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. 
You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting 
it in the right place, and you would be glad to see 
it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You 
all know that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down 
there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce that sys- 
tem in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they 
could for the system of gradual emancipation which 
you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. Now, 
I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they 
were beaten, and when the news came over here, you 
threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy. 
More than that, take all the argument made in favor 
of the system you have proposed, and it carefully 
excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in the 
institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain 
that policy carefully exclude it. Even here to-day 
you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I 
uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an 
end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished 
every slave in the United States was in the country of 
his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending 
to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it 
might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an 



Abraham Lincoln 267 

end. The Democratic poHcy in regard to that insti- 
tution will not tolerate the merest breath, the 
slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. 
Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He 
says he "don't care whether it is voted up or voted 
down" in the Territories. I do not care myself, in 
dealing with that expression, whether it is intended 
to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the 
subject, or only of the national poHcy he desires to 
have established. It is alike valuable for my pur- 
pose. Any man can say that who does not see any- 
thing wrong in slavery ; but no man can logically say 
it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can 
logically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted 
up or voted down. He may say he don't care 
whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but 
he must logically have a choice between a right 
thing and a wrong thing. He contends that what- 
ever community wants slaves has a right to have 
them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is 
a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do 
wrong. He says that upon the score of equality 
slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, 
like other property. This is strictly logical if there 
is no difference between it and other property. If 
it and other property are equal, this argument is 
entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong 
and the other right, there is no use to institute a 
comparison between right and wrong. You may 
turn over everything in the Democratic policy from 
beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on 
the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred 



268 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, 
or the shape it takes in short maxim-Uke arguments, 
— it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there 
is anything wrong in it. 

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will 
continue in this country when these poor tongues of 
Judge Douglas and myself shall be silent. It is the 
eternal struggle between these two principles — right 
and wrong — throughout the world. They are the 
two principles that have stood face to face from the 
beginning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. 
The one is the common right of humanity, and the 
other the divine right of kings. It is the same prin- 
ciple in whatever shape it develops itself. It is the 
same spirit that says, "You work and toil and earn 
bread, and I '11 eat it." No matter in what shape it 
comes, whether from the mouth of a king who seeks 
to bestride the people of his own nation and live by 
the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as an 
apology for enslaving another race, it is the same 
tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my 
gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to 
Judge Douglas, — that he looks to no end of the institu- 
tion of slavery. That will help the people to see where 
the struggle really is. It will hereafter place with us 
all men who really do wish the wrong may have an 
end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which 
obscures the real question, when we can get Judge 
Douglas and his friends to avow a policy looking to 
its perpetuation, — we can get out from among that 
class of men and bring them to the side of those who 
treat it as a wrong. Then there will soon be an end 



Abraham Lincoln 269 

of it, and that end will be its "ultimate extinction." 
Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all 
extraneous matter thrown out so that men can 
fairly see the real difference between the parties, this 
controversy will soon be settled, and it will be done 
peaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. 
It will be placed again where the wisest and best men 
of the world placed it. Brooks of South Carolina 
once declared that when this Constitution was 
framed its framers did not look to the institution 
existing until this day. When he said this, I think 
he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history 
of the times. But he also said they were better and 
wiser men than the men of these days, yet the men 
of these days had experience which they had not, 
and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a 
necessity in this country that slavery should be per- 
petual. I now say that, willingly or unwillingly, 
purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has 
been the most prominent instrument in changing 
the position of the institution of slavery, — ^which the 
fathers of the government expected to come to an 
end ere this, — and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin 
basis; placing it where he openly confesses he has no 
desire there shall ever be an end of it. 

I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will 
employ it in saying something about this argument 
Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scott 
decision, that the people of the Territories can still 
somehow exclude slavery. The first thing I ask 
attention to is the fact that Judge Douglas con- 
stantly said, before the decision, that whether they 



2 70 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. 
But after the court had made the decision he virtu- 
ally says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, 
but for the people. And how is it he tells us they 
can exclude it? He says it needs "police regula- 
tions," and that admits of "unfriendly legislation." 
Although it is a right established by the Constitution 
of the United States to take a slave into a Territory 
of the United States and hold him as property, yet 
unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendly 
legislation, and more especially if they adopt un- 
friendly legislation, they can practically exclude 
him. Now, without meeting this proposition as a 
matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitu- 
tional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who 
looks me in the face before me, and let us suppose 
that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. 
The first thing he will do will be to swear that he will 
support the Constitution of the United States. His 
neighbor by his side in the Territory has slaves and 
needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy 
that constitutional right. Can he withhold the 
legislation which his neighbor needs for the enjoy- 
ment of a right which is fixed in his favor in the Con- 
stitution of the United States which he has sworn to 
support? Can he withhold it without violating his 
oath ? And, more especially, can he pass unfriendly 
legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a 
monstrous sort of talk about the Constitution of the 
United States ! There has never been as outlandish or 
lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable 
man on earth. I do not hplieve it is a constitutional 



Abraham Lincoln 271 

right to hold slaves in a Territory of the United 
States. I believe the decision was improperly made 
and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious 
against those who go for reversing a decision. But 
he is for legislating it out of all force while the law 
itself stands. I repeat that there has never been so 
monstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a 
respectable man. 

I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe 
that the people of the Southern States are entitled to 
a Congressional Fugitive Slave law, — that is a right 
fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made 
available to them without Congressional legislation. 
In the Judge's language, it is a "barren right," 
which needs legislation before it can become efficient 
and valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. 
And as the right is constitutional, I agree that the 
legislation shall be granted to it, — and that not that 
we like the institution of slavery. We profess to 
have no taste for running and catching niggers, — at 
least, I profess no taste for that job at all. Why then 
do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law? Because 
I do not understand that the Constitution, which 
guarantees that right, can be supported without it. 
And if I believed that the right to hold a slave in a 
Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with 
the right to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to 
give it the legislation necessary to support it. I say 
that no man can deny his obligation to give the 
necessary legislation to support slavery in a Ter- 
ritory, who believes it is a constitutional right to 
have it there. No man can, who does not give the 



2/2 Linclon and Douglas Debates 

Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation en- 
joined by the Constitution to enact a Fugitive State 
law. Try it now. It is the strongest Abolition argu- 
ment ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decision is 
correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory 
is equally a constitutional right with the right of a 
slaveholder to have his runaway returned. No one 
can show the distinction between them. The one is 
express, so that we cannot deny it. The other is 
construed to be in the Constitution, so that he who 
believes the decision to be correct believes in the 
right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly 
legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, 
slavery may be driven from the Territories, cannot 
avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionists 
may deny the obligation to return fugitives, and 
claim the power to pass laws unfriendly to the right 
of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. I do not 
know how such an argument may strike a popular 
assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before 
a body of men whose minds are educated to estimat- 
ing evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an 
iota of difference between the constitutional right to 
reclaim a fugitive and the constitutional right to hold 
a slave, in a Territory, provided this Dred Scott 
decision is correct, I defy any man to make an 
argument that will justify unfriendly legislation to 
deprive a slaveholder of his right to hold his slave in a 
Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, 
breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for 
nullifying the Fugitive Slave law. Why, there is not 
such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, after all! 



Stephen A. Douglas 273 

MR. Douglas's reply. 

Mr. Lincoln has concluded his remarks by saymg 
that there is not such an Abolitionist as I am in 
all America. If he could make the Abolitionists of 
Illinois believe that, he would not have much show 
for the Senate. Let him make the Abolitionists 
believe the truth of that statement, and his politi- 
cal back is broken. 

His first criticism upon me is the expression of his 
hope that the war of the Administration will be 
prosecuted against me and the Democratic party of 
this State with vigor. He wants that war prosecuted 
with vigor; I have no doubt of it. His hopes of 
success and the hopes of his party depend solely 
upon it. They have no chance of destroying the 
Democracy of this State except by the aid of Federal 
patronage. He has all the Federal office-holders 
here as his allies, running separate tickets against 
the Democracy to divide the party, although the 
leaders all intend to vote directly the Abolition ticket, 
and only leave the greenhorns to vote this separate 
ticket who refuse to go into the Abolition camp. 
There is something really refreshing in the thought 
that Mr. Lincoln is in favor of prosecuting one war 
vigorously. It is the first war that I ever knew him 
to be in favor of prosecuting. It is the first war 
that I ever knew him to believe to be just or con- 
stitutional. When the Mexican War was being 
waged, and the American army was surrounded by 
the enemy in Mexico, he thought that war was un- 
constitutional, unnecessary, and unjust. He thought 

it was not commenced on the right spot. 
18 



2 74 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

When I made an incidental allusion of that kind 
in the joint discussion over at Charleston some weeks 
ago, Lincoln, in replying, said that I, Douglas, had 
charged him with voting against supplies for the 
Mexican War, and then he reared up, full length, and 
swore that he never voted against the supplies ; that 
it was a slander; and caught hold of Ficklin, who sat 
on the stand, and said, "Here, Ficklin, tell the people 
that it is a lie." Well, Ficklin, who had served in 
Congress with him, stood up and told them all that 
he recollected about it. It was that when George 
Ashmun, of Massachusetts, brought forward a reso- 
lution declaring the war unconstitutional, unneces- 
sar}^ and unjust, that Lincoln had voted for it. 
"Yes," said Lincoln, "I did." Thus he confessed 
that he voted that the war was wrong, that our 
country was in the wrong, and consequently that the 
Mexicans were in the right; but charged that I had 
slandered him by saying that he voted against the 
supplies. I never charged him with voting against 
the supplies in my life, because I knew that he was 
not in Congress when they were voted. The war was 
commenced on the 13th day of May, 1846, and on 
that day we appropriated in Congress ten millions 
of dollars and fifty thousand men to prosecute it. 
During the same session we voted more men and 
more money, and at the next session we voted more 
men and more money, so that by the time Mr. Lincoln 
entered Congress we had enough men and enough 
money to carry on the war, and had no occasion to 
vote for any more. When he got into the House, 
being opposed to the war, and not being able to stop 



Stephen A. Douglas 275 

the supplies, because they had all gone forward, all 
he could do was to follow the lead of Corwin, and 
prove that the war was not begun on the right spot, 
and that it was unconstitutional, unnecessary, and 
wrong. Remember, too, that this he did after the 
war had been begun. It is one thing to be opposed 
to the declaration of a war, another and very differ- 
ent thing to take sides with the enemy against your 
own country after the war has been commenced. 
Our army was in Mexico at the time, many battles 
had been fought; our citizens, who were defending 
the honor of their country's flag, were surrounded by 
the daggers, the guns, and the poison of the enemy. 
Then it was that Corwin made his speech in which he 
declared that the American soldiers ought to be 
welcomed by the Mexicans with bloody hands and 
hospitable graves; then it was that Ashmun and 
Lincoln voted in the House of Representatives that 
the war was unconstitutional and unjust; and Ash- 
mun's resolution, Corwin's speech, and Lincoln's vote 
were sent to Mexico and read at the head of the 
Mexican army, to prove to them that there was a 
Mexican party in the Congress of the United States 
who were doing all in their power to aid them. That 
a man who takes sides with the common enemy 
against his own country in time of war should rejoice 
in a war being made on me now, is very natural. 
And, in my opinion, no other kind of a man would 
rejoice in it. 

Mr. Lincoln has told you a great deal to-day about 
his being an old-line Clay Whig. Bear in mind that 
there are a great many old Clay Whigs down in this 



276 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

region. It is more agreeable, therefore, for him to 
talk about the old Clay Whig party than it is for him 
to talk Abolitionism. We did not hear much about 
the old Clay Whig party up in the Abolition dis- 
tricts. How much of an old-Hne Henry Clay Whig 
was he? Have you read General Singleton's speech 
at Jacksonville? You know that General Singleton 
was for twenty-five years the confidential friend of 
Henry Clay in Illinois, and he testified that in 1847, 
when the Constitutional Convention of this State 
was in session, the Whig members were invited to a 
Whig caucus at the house of Mr. Lincoln's brother-in- 
law, where Mr. Lincoln proposed to throw Henry 
Clay overboard and take up General Taylor in his 
place, giving as his reason that if the Whigs did 
not take up General Taylor the Democrats would. 
Singleton testifies that Lincoln in that speech urged 
as another reason for throwing Henry Clay overboard 
that the Whigs had fought long enough for principle 
and ought to begin to fight for success. Singleton 
also testifies that Lincoln's speech did have the effect 
of cutting Clay's throat, and that he (Singleton) and 
others withdrew from the caucus in indignation. 
He further states that when they got to Philadelphia 
to attend the National Convention of the Whig party, 
that Lincoln was there, the bitter and deadly enemy 
of Clay, and that he tried to keep him (Singleton) 
out of the Convention because he insisted on voting 
for Clay, and Lincoln was determined to have Taylor. 
Singleton says that Lincoln rejoiced with very great 
joy when he found the mangled remains of the 
murdered Whig statesman lying cold before him. 



Stephen A. Douglas 277 

Now, Mr. Lincoln tells you that he is an old-line Clay 
Whig! General Singleton testifies to the facts I have 
narrated, in a public speech which has been printed 
and circulated broadcast over the State for weeks, 
yet not a lisp have we heard from Mr. Lincoln on the 
subject, except that he is an old Clay Whig. 

What part of Henry Clay's policy did Lincoln ever 
advocate? He was in Congress in 1848-9, when the 
Wilmot Proviso warfare disturbed the peace and 
harmony of the country, until it shook the founda- 
tion of the Republic from its centre to its circum- 
ference. It was that agitation that brought Clay 
forth from his retirement at Ashland again to occupy 
his seat in the Senate of the United States, to see if 
he could not, by his great wisdom and experience, 
and the renown of his name, do something to restore 
peace and quiet to a disturbed country. Who got up 
that sectional strife that Clay had to be called upon 
to quell ? I have heard Lincoln boast that he voted 
forty-two times for the Wilmot Proviso, and that he 
would have voted as many times more if he could. 
Lincoln is the man, in connection with Seward, 
Chase, Giddings, and other Abolitionists, who got up 
that strife that I helped Clay to put down. Henry 
Clay came back to the Senate in 1849, ^^^ saw that 
he must do something to restore peace to the 
country. The Union Whigs and the Union Demo- 
crats welcomed him, the moment he arrived, as the 
man for the occasion. We believed that he, of all 
men on earth, had been preserved by Divine Provi- 
dence to guide us out of our difficulties, and we 
Democrats rallied under Clay then, as you Whigs in 



278 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Nullification time rallied under the banner of old 
Jackson, forgetting party when the country was in 
danger, in order that we might have a country first, 
and parties afterwards. 

And this reminds me that Mr. Lincoln told you 
that the slavery question was the only thing that ever 
disturbed the peace and harmony of the Union. Did 
not Nullification once raise its head and disturb the 
peace of this Union in 1832? Was that the slavery 
question, Mr. Lincoln? Did not disunion raise its 
monster head during the last war with Great Britain ? 
Was that the slavery question, Mr. Lincoln ? The 
peace of this country has been disturbed three times, 
once during the war with Great Britain, once on the 
tariff question, and once on the slavery question. 
His argument, therefore, that slavery is the only 
question that has ever created dissension in the 
Union falls to the ground. It is true that agitators 
are enabled now to use this slavery question for the 
purpose of sectional strife. He admits that in regard 
to all things else, the principle that I advocate, mak- 
ing each State and Territory free to decide for itself, 
ought to prevail. He instances the cranberry laws 
and the oyster laws, and he might have gone through 
the whole list with the same effect. I say that all 
these laws are local and domestic, and that local and 
domestic concerns should be left to each State and 
each Territor}^ to manage for itself. If agitators 
would acquiesce in that principle, there never would 
be any danger to the peace and harmony of the 
Union. 

Mr. Lincoln tries to avoid the main issue by at- 



Stephen A. Douglas 279 

tacking the truth of my proposition that our fathers 
made this government divided into free and slave 
States, recognizing the right of each to decide all its 
local questions for itself. Did they not thus make it ? 
It is true that they did not establish slavery in any of 
the States, or abolish it in any of them; but finding 
thirteen States, twelve of which were slave and one 
free, they agreed to form a government uniting them 
together as they stood, divided into free and slave 
States, and to guarantee forever to each State the 
right to do as it pleased on the slavery question. 
Having thus made the government, and conferred 
this right upon each State forever, I assert that this 
government can exist as they made it, divided into 
free and slave States, if any one State chooses to 
retain slavery. He says that he looks forward to a 
time when slavery shall be abolished everywhere. 
I look forward to a time when each State shall be 
allowed to do as it pleases. If it chooses to keep 
slavery forever, it is not my business, but its own; 
if it chooses to abolish slavery, it is its own business, 
— not mine. I care more for the great principle of 
self-government, the right of the people to rule, than 
I do for all the negroes in Christendom. I would not 
endanger the perpetuity of this Union, I would not 
blot out the great inalienable rights of the white man, 
for all the negroes that ever existed. Hence, I say, 
let us maintain this government on the principles 
that our fathers made it, recognizing the right of each 
State to keep slavery as long as its people determine, 
or to abolish it when they please. But Mr. Lincoln 
says that when our fathers made this government 



28o Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

they did not look forward to the state of things now 
existing, and therefore he thinks the doctrine was 
wrong; and he quotes Brooks of South Carolina to 
prove that our fathers then thought that probably 
slavery would be abolished by each State acting for 
itself before this time. Suppose they did; suppose 
they did not foresee what has occurred, — does that 
change the principles of our government? They did 
not, probably, foresee the telegraph that transmits 
intelligence by lightning, nor did they foresee the 
railroads that now form the bonds of union between 
the different States, or the thousand mechanical in- 
ventions that have elevated mankind. But do these 
things change the principles of the government? 
Our fathers, I say, made this government on the 
principle of the right of each State to do as it pleases 
in its own domestic affairs, subject to the Constitu- 
tion, and allowed the people of each to apply to every 
new change of circumstances such remedy as they 
may see fit to improve their condition. This right 
they have for all time to come. 

Mr. Lincoln went on to tell you that he does not at 
all desire to interfere with slavery in the States where 
it exists, nor does his party. I expected him to say 
that down here. Let me ask him, then, how he 
expects to put slavery in the course of ultimate ex- 
tinction everywhere, if he does not intend to interfere 
with it in the States where it exists? He says that 
he will prohibit it in all Territories, and the inference 
is, then, that unless they make free States out of 
them he will keep them out of the Union ; for, mark 
you, he did not say whether or not he would vote to 



Stephen A. Douglas 281 

admit Kansas with slavery or not, as her people might 
apply (he forgot that, as usual, etc.) : he did not say 
whether or not he was in favor of bringing the Terri- 
tories now in existence into the Union on the princi- 
ple of Clay's Compromise measures on the slaver \' 
question. I told you that he would not. His idea 
is that he will prohibit slavery in all the Territories 
and thus force them all to become free States, sur- 
rounding the slave States with a cordon of free 
States, and hemming them in, keeping the slaves con- 
fined to their present limits whilst they go on multi- 
plying, until the soil on which they live will no longer 
feed them, and he will thus be able to put slavery in 
a course of ultimate extinction by starvation. He 
will extinguish slavery in the Southern States as 
the French general exterminated the Algerines when 
he smoked them out. He is going to extinguisli 
slavery by surroimding the Slave States, hemming in 
the slaves, and starving them out of existence, as 
you smoke a fox out of his hole. He intends to do 
that in the name of humanity and Christianity, in 
order that we may get rid of the terrible crime and 
sin entailed upon our fathers of holding slaves. Mr. 
Lincoln makes out that line of policy, and appeals to 
the moral sense of justice and to the Christian feel- 
ing of the community to sustain him. He sa3^s that 
any man who holds to the contrary doctrine is in the 
position of the king who claimed to govern by divine 
right. Let us examine for a moment and see what 
principle it was that overthrew the divine right of 
George the Third to govern us. Did not these col- 
onies rebel because the British Parliament had no 



2»2 



Lincoln and Douglas Debates 



right to pass laws concerning our property and 
domestic and private institutions without our con- 
sent? We demanded that the British Government 
should not pass such laws unless they gave us repre- 
sentation in the body passing them; and this the 
British Government insisting on doing, we went to 
war, on the principle that the home government 
should not control and govern distant colonies with- 
out giving them a representation. Now, Mr. Lincoln 
proposes to govern the Territories without giving 
them a representation, and calls on Congress to pass 
laws controlling their property and domestic con- 
cerns without their consent and against their will. 
Thus, he asserts for his party the indentical prin- 
ciple asserted by George III. and the Tories of the 
Revolution. 

I ask you to look into these things, and then tell 
me whether the Democracy or the Abolitionists are 
right. I hold that the people of a Territory, like 
those of a State (I use the language of Mr. Buchanan 
in his Letter of Acceptance), have the right to decide 
for themselves whether slavery shall or shall not 
exist within their limits. The point upon which 
Chief Justice Taney expresses his opinion is simply 
this, that slaves, being property, stand on an equal 
footing with other property, and consequently that 
the owner has the same right to carry that property 
into a Territory that he has any other, subject to the 
same conditions. Suppose that one of your mer- 
chants was to take fifty or one hundred thousand 
dollars' worth of liquors to Kansas. He has a right 
to go there, under that decision; but when he gets 



Stephen A. Douglas 283 

there he finds the Maine Hquor law in force, and what 
can he do with his property after he gets it there? 
He cannot sell it, he cannot use it; it is subject to the 
local law, and that law is against him, and the best 
thing he can do with it is to bring it back into 
Missouri or Illinois and sell it. If you take negroes 
to Kansas, as Colonel Jefferson Davis said in his 
Bangor speech, from which I have quoted to-day, 
you must take them there subject to the local law. 
If the people want the institution of slavery, they 
will protect and encourage it; but if they do not 
want it, they will withhold that protection, and the 
absence of local legislation protecting slavery ex- 
cludes it as completely as a positive prohibition. 
You slaveholders of Missouri might as well under- 
stand, what you know practically, that you cannot 
carry slavery where the people do not want it. All 
you have a right to ask is that the people shall do as 
they please : if they want slavery, let them have it ; 
if they do not want it, allow them to refuse to en- 
courage it. 

My friends, if, as I have said before, we will only 
live up to this great fundamental principle, there will 
be peace between the North and the South. Mr. 
Lincoln admits that, under the Constitution, on all 
domestic questions, except slavery, we ought not to 
interfere with the people of each State. What right 
have we to interfere with slavery any more than we 
have to interfere with any other question ? He says 
that this slavery question is now the bone of conten- 
tion. Why? Simply because agitators have com- 
bined in all the free States to make war upon it. 



284 Lincoln and Douglas Debates 

Suppose the agitators in the States should combine 
in one half of the Union to make war upon the rail- 
road system of the other half? They would thus be 
driven to the same sectional strife. Suppose one 
section makes war upon any other peculiar institu- 
tion of the opposite section, and the same strife is 
produced. The only remedy and safety is that we 
shall stand by the Constitution as our fathers made 
it, obey the laws as they are passed, while they stand 
the proper test, and sustain the decisions of the 
Supreme Court and the constituted authorities. 



Ji Selection from the 
Catalogue of 

C. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 



CetBpI«te Cataloi^ued s«iit 
on application 



Abraham Lincoln 

The People's Leader in the Struggle for National 
Elxistence 



By George Haven Putnam, Litt.D. 

Author of " Books and Their Makers in the Middle Agei," " The 
Censorship of the Church," etc. 

With frontispiece reproduced in photogravure 
from the portrait by Marshall. 

Crown 8vo. $1.25 net. {By mail, $l.40) 

The monograph presents the main events in the career 
of the people's leader. The development of Lincoln's 
character and the growth of his powers from boyhood 
through his work at the Bar, and as a leader in the political 
contests that preceded the war for the restriction of slavery, 
and his final service to the country as War President and 
commander-in-chief of its forces, are recorded in outline, 
but with such measure of comprehensiveness as serves to 
make the picture and record practically complete. 

From Robert T. Lincoln 

" I shall preserve this voltmie as one of the most treasured 
of those relating to my father. . . , Your narrative is full 
of interest and of freshness and I have read it throughout 
with the greatest pleasure." 

From the New York Sun 

" An admirable piece of work that constitutss a distinctive 
addition to the increasing mass of Lincoln literature." 

From the Cleveland Leader 

" A comprehensive study of the life and character of 
Lincoln, presented in a direct and attractive manner, and 
with decided charm of style. . . . One of the most valuable 
books that has yet been brought into print concerning 
the great Captain." 

New York G. P. Putnam's Sons London 



Gettysburg and Lincoln 

The Battle, the Cemetery, and 
the National Park 

By Henry Sweetser Burrage 

Brevet Major U. S. Vols. 

With S7 Full-page Illustrations and 3 Battle Plans, 
Svo. $1.^0 net. By mail, $i.6j. 

Gettysburg will always be famous as one of the great battle- 
fields of the world, and as the place where was fought the 
decisive battle of the Civil War. The victory there won for the 
Union Cause was commemorated by the establishing of the 
beautiful National Park in which is the Cemetery that contains 
the graves and monuments of the soldiers who then gave their 
lives for their country — a spot that will always be the goal of 
patriotic pilgrims. The consecration of the Cemetery was the 
occasion of X,incoln's famous Address, which ranks among the 
great historic speeches of the world, and which is, in the simple 
grandeur and nobility of its eloquence, so essentially characteristic 
of the man. Major Burrage, himself a War veteran, brings together 
in this volume, which is illustrated, and equipped with tactical 
maps, the records of the Battle, the Park, the Cemetery, and the 
Lincoln Address. 



G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 

New York London 



Constitutional Edition 



The Writings of 
Abraham Lincoln 

Including the full text of the Lincoln- Douglas Debates, 

together with the Essay on Lincoln, by CARL 

SCHURZ, the Address on Lincoln, by 

JOSEPH H. CHOATE, and 

the Life of Lincoln, by 

NOAH BROOKS 

Edited by ARTHUR BROOKS LAPSLEY 

Withan Introduction by PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT 

S Volumes, Cloth, $20.00 per set 
Three*Q,uarters Levant, $40.00 per set 

The works of Lincoln hold a deservedly high place in 
American Literature, and this edition has been planned with 
the object of presenting them in a handsome library edition, 
at a moderate price. 

One volume of the set is devoted to the Life of Lincoln, 
by Noah Brooks, which has been accepted as the standard 
biography of Lincoln, presenting in compact narrative a sober, 
discriminating record of Lincoln's public services and private 
life. 

The Writings of Lincoln cover his public addresses, 
letters, and other documents, together with a large number of 
more personal letters and speeches. 

The Editor has been able to secure for this edition, from 
Historical Associations and through the courtesy of private 
collectors, certain interesting and important material not 
before brought into print in book form. 

The Editor has also supplied occasional brief foot-notes 
throughout the text which, without making the work pedantic, 
or introducing a jarring note, will elucidate difficult passages 
and call the reader's attention to interesting facts. 

Send for descriptive circular 

G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 

Ne-w YorK London 



" The best summary at present avsitable of the 
political history of the United States." 

Frank H. Hodder, Professor of American History in th€ 
Jniversity of Kansas. 



American Political History 

1763=1876 

By Alexander Johnston 

Edited and Supplemented by 

James Albert Woodburn 

Professor of History and Political Science, Indiana Uni 

versity; Author of " The American Republic," 

" Political Parties and Party Problems 

in the United States," etc. 

I» iw0 parts, each complete in itself and indexed, OeatTM. 
Each, net $s.oo 

I. The Revolution, the Constitution, and the Growth 
of Nationality, 1763-1832. 

3. The Slavery Controversy, Secession, Civil War, 
and Reconstruction. 1 820-1 876. 

These volumes present the principal features in the political history 
of the United States from the opening of the American Revolution to 
the close of the era of the Reconstruction. They give in more con- 
Tenient form the series of articles on "American Political History " con- 
tributed to Lalor's "Cyclopedia of Political Science, Political Economy. 
•nd Political History," by the late Professor Alexander Johnston. 

" These essays, covering the whole field of the political history of the 
United States, nave a continuity and unity of purpose ; irrtroduced, 
Mrranged and supplemented as they have been by Professor Woodburn 
(who contributes a very necessary chapter on the Monroe Doctrine) they 
present a complete and well-balanced history of the politics of the United 
States." — Hart/ord Courant, 



G. P. PUTNAM'S SONS 
New York London 

ril 



